A clearer distinction between issues best addressed through guidance and those requiring enforcement would strengthen The Pensions Regulator's (TPR) proposed approach, the Pensions Administration Standards Association (PASA) has said.

In its response to TPR's consultation on its updated enforcement approach, PASA said that it agrees with the overall direction of the strategy, particularly its focus on saver outcomes, proportionality, and early intervention.

It also welcomed the commitment to transparency and publishing enforcement outcomes and clarifying expectations, arguing that transparency is "vital" to building trust with industry.

However, it said that TPR should also ensure communications are accessible not only to industry professionals but also to savers who may not have specialist legal or regulatory expertise.

This was not the only area where improvements could be made, as PASA suggested that the strategy should also be clearer in distinguishing between regulatory breaches best addressed through guidance and education, versus those requiring formal enforcement.

"Explicitly recognising this distinction would help schemes understand when enforcement is likely and when collaborative improvement is preferred," it stated.

"TPR should clarify the meaning of ‘monitoring outputs’ in ‘Putting saver outcomes first’."

The group also warned that it’s not clear what’s being replaced by ‘real-world outcomes’, arguing that while the latter sounds positive, it’s important to know what might now receive less attention.

"If certain outputs are no longer tracked, they could become blind spots," it warned.

Pasa also suggested that it would be useful for TPR to provide a real-world example of how the new, more collaborative approach differs from how the problem was approached previously.

It also encouraged TPR to define the limits of collaboration, clarifying that being collaborative doesn’t mean consulting everyone on every decision, as clear boundaries will help ensure efficiency.

Whilst PASA acknowledged that the enforcement decision framework of impact, scale and complexity provides a logical basis for prioritisation, it suggested that TPR should explicitly
reference the role of administration quality and data integrity as factors in assessing risk.

The group explained that failures in administration often manifest as systemic risks affecting large numbers of savers, arguing that prioritising these areas would reinforce the importance of robust administration standards.

More broadly, the group warned that there is a risk of smaller schemes or administrators perceiving enforcement as overly punitive, particularly where resources are limited.

To mitigate this, it said that TPR should continue to emphasise proportionality and provide clear signposting to practical guidance and standards, to ensure enforcement drives improvement rather than disengagement.

The group also encouraged TPR to introduce semi-regular reviews of its priorities to avoid blind spots, warning that, if an issue isn’t seen as a priority now, it may be overlooked, even if it becomes more significant later.

In addition to this, PASA's response warned the regulator against being too reliant on data, arguing that using data to support decisions brings its own risks.

"There’s a danger in trusting data too much, especially if it’s assumed to prove something it doesn’t," it explained.

"Data shows the past, but the past isn’t always a guide to the future. PASA recommends sense-checking insights and randomising selection to avoid confirmation bias."

---