Smart Pensions · CAS-74469-D5N8

CAS-74469-D5N8

Ombudsman’s Determination Applicant Mrs R

Scheme Smart Pensions (the Scheme)

Respondent Craig Boyd Hairdressing (the Employer)

Outcome

Complaint summary

Background information, including submissions from the parties In June 2018, Mrs R began her employment with the Employer.

Between July 2018 and July 2021, the Employer failed to pay pension contributions into the Scheme.

On 28 June 2021, Mrs R brought her complaint to The Pensions Ombudsman (TPO).

Mrs R provided copies of a selection of payslips that she held which detailed the pension contributions deducted from her pay and the corresponding employer contributions. A breakdown of the deductions has been included in the Appendix.

1 CAS-74469-D5N8

Caseworker’s Opinion

• The Caseworker said that TPO’s normal approach, in cases such as these, was to seek agreement from all parties on the facts of the complaint, including the dates and amounts of contributions involved. He said that the Employer had engaged with TPO and acknowledged that contributions had not been paid. So, it was clear an error had occurred and the Employer was responsible.

2 CAS-74469-D5N8 • The Appendix provides examples of the weekly contributions that were due. Mrs R said despite these contributions being deducted from her salary each week, none of these contributions were actually paid to SMART Pensions.

• The Employer has failed to provide a schedule of the contributions deducted from Mrs R’s pay. So, the contribution schedule in the Appendix has been produced based solely on the evidence produced by Mrs R.

• The caseworker had no reason to doubt the information provided by Mrs R and she has provided payslips to show what was due to the Scheme. Given that the Employer accepted that the contributions had not been paid, it is clear that maladministration has occurred.

• It was the caseworker’s opinion that the complaint should be upheld because the Employer made deductions from Mrs R’s salary, which it did not pay in the Scheme.

• In the caseworker’s opinion, Mrs R has suffered significant distress and inconvenience as a result of this maladministration from the Employer. The Caseworker was of the opinion that an award of £500 for non-financial injustice was appropriate in the circumstances.

Ombudsman’s decision

3 CAS-74469-D5N8 Directions

(i) pay Mrs R £500 for the significant distress and inconvenience she has experienced;

(ii) produce a schedule (the Schedule) showing the employee contributions deducted from Mrs R’s pay in respect of the period of her employment. The Schedule shall also include the corresponding employer contributions that were due to the Scheme; and

(iii) forward the Schedule to Mrs R.

(i) pay the missing contributions to the Scheme;

(ii) establish with the Scheme whether the late payment of contributions has meant that fewer units were purchased in Mrs R’s Scheme account than she would have otherwise secured, had the contributions been paid on time; and

(iii) pay any reasonable administration fee should the Scheme administrator charge a fee for carrying out the above calculation.

Within 14 days of receiving confirmation from SMART Pensions of any shortfall in Mrs R’s units, pay the cost of purchasing any additional units required to make up the shortfall.

Anthony Arter CBE

Deputy Pensions Ombudsman 02 May 2023

4 CAS-74469-D5N8 Appendix Date-Week Ending Employee contributions Employer contributions

20 July 2018 £6.15 Not shown

28 September 2018 £5.57 Not shown

5 October 2018 £6.34 Not shown

12 October 2018 £6.34 Not shown

23 July 2021 £7.60 Not shown

30 July 2021 £62.70 Not shown

5