The Pensions Ombudsman (TPO) has upheld a complaint against Figril Limited for failing to pay contributions into a worker’s Nest pension due to maladministration.

The employer was ordered to pay £6,498.01 into the scheme and to ensure that the complainant, Mr G, was not financially disadvantaged by its maladministration.

In addition to this, the employer was ordered to pay Mr G an additional £1,000 for the serious distress and inconvenience it has caused him.

Mr G complained that the employer, despite deducting contributions from his pay, failed to pay them into the scheme.

On 6 September 2023, Mr G brought his complaint to TPO and provided copies of the payslips he held for the period of unpaid pension contributions.

TPO asked the employer for a formal response to Mr G’s complaint on 18 June 2024. This request was then repeated on 2 July 2024.

The employer responded to TPO on 2 July 2024 and agreed that the contributions were outstanding. However, it said it was in financial hardship and did not have the funds to pay the outstanding contributions.

The employer then informed TPO that it had arranged with The Pensions Regulator (TPR) to pay the contributions over a year in £1,000 monthly instalments.

However, on the 10 and 30 July 2024, TPO asked the employer how much it would pay under the TPR arrangement and asked the employer to send evidence of the TPR arrangement. The employer did not respond to either request.

The case was then passed on to the adjudicator who said that further action was required by the employer as it had failed to remit the contributions due to the scheme.

The adjudicator said Mr G had suffered “significant” distress and inconvenience due to the employer’s maladministration and also said an award of £500 for non-financial injustice was appropriate for the circumstances.

The employer acknowledged the adjudicator’s opinion but failed to respond.

The case was then passed over to the deputy ombudsman, Anthony Arter, who agreed with the adjudicator's opinion except for the award for distress and inconvenience.

Arter believed that Mr G was owed £1,000 as the award for distress and inconvenience, instead of £500.

In his decision, Arter said: “Mr G has complained that the employer has not paid all the contributions due to his scheme account.

“I find that the employee contributions were deducted but held back by the employer and not paid into the scheme.

“The employer failed to rectify this and did not fully engage with either TPO or Mr G. It has also failed to respond to the adjudicator’s opinion.

“The employer’s failure to pay employee and employer contributions into the scheme amounts to unjust enrichment and has caused Mr G to suffer a financial loss. The employer shall take remedial action to put this right.

“Mr G is entitled to a distress and inconvenience award in respect of the serious ongoing non-financial injustice which he has suffered, which was exacerbated by its failure to properly respond during TPO’s investigation into Mr G’s complaint.”

---