Nest Pensions Plan · CAS-88223-W0K2

CAS-88223-W0K2

Ombudsman’s Determination Applicant Ms T

Scheme NEST Pensions Plan (the Plan)

Respondent The Farm Fresh Market Ltd (the Employer)

Outcome

Complaint summary

Background information, including submissions from the parties In March 2021, Ms T began her employment with the Employer.

On 31 July 2021, the first contributions were deducted from Ms T’s salary.

On 10 December 2021, Ms T left employment with the Employer.

On 1 January 2022, Ms T realised pensions deductions had not been paid into the Plan.

On 7 January 2022, Ms T first raised the issue with the Employer. The Employer said it would resolve the issue with its accountant and arrange a payment plan. It said that the reason the contributions were not being paid was because NEST had old account details. The Employer also confirmed the employee contributions.

On 16 February 2022, the Employer said the funds would be paid the following day. However, no payment was made.

1 CAS-88223-W0K2 On 21 February 2022, The Employer told Ms T that the money had left the account. Ms T said nothing had been received by the Plan. The Employer said a direct debit had been set up and agreed to send over a reference number. However, the Employer failed to send over the reference number as agreed.

On 1 March 2022, Ms T asked for an update on the situation. The Employer said it had already set up a direct debit and was trying to resolve the situation.

On 2 March 2022, Ms T spoke to NEST which confirmed the Employer had not enrolled her into the Plan.

On 5 March 2022, Ms T chased the Employer for an update on the position.

On 8 March 2022, Ms T complained to the Employer.

On 17 March 2022, the Employer asked Ms T to send it a copy of her payslips. She only had payslips from July onwards. She raised this with the Employer but received no response to her email.

On 19 March and 21 March 2022 Ms T chased up the Employer. It responded saying £230.37 should be leaving the account the following day and would be paid into the Plan.

On 23 March 2022, the Employer provided a screenshot from NEST showing 7 April 2022 as for the date Ms T would be enrolled into the Plan. It also confirmed outstanding employee contributions of £190.04 and employer contributions of £142.53.

On 7 April 2022, Ms T was enrolled into the Plan.

On 25 April 2022, Ms T chased the Employer again. The Employer said the outstanding contributions should be in the account by the end of the day.

On 3 May 2022, Ms T checked and there was still nothing in the Plan. The Employer said bailiffs had come and taken everything.

On 5 May 2022, Ms T chased the Employer again. It said the company had “gone bust” and it was now at the hands of the liquidators who would pay the debt through sale of equipment and stock.

On 18 May 2022, Ms T submitted an application to The Pensions Ombudsman (TPO)

Ms T provided copies of the payslips that she held for the period from July 2021 to November 2021, which detailed the pension contributions deducted from her pay and the corresponding employer contributions. These deductions amounted to £332.57. A breakdown of the deductions has been included in the Appendix.

2 CAS-88223-W0K2

Adjudicator’s Opinion

• The Caseworker stated 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, as the Employer had not responded to any of TPO’s communications, he had to base his Opinion solely on the information provided by Ms T.

• The Caseworker said that he had no reason to doubt the information provided by Ms T. So, in the Caseworker’s Opinion, on the balance of probabilities, contributions had been deducted from Ms T’s salary, which had not been paid into the Plan. In addition, the Employer had not paid any of the employer contributions that were due over the same period. As a result of its maladministration, Ms T was not in the financial position she ought to be in.

• In the Caseworker’s view, Ms T had suffered significant distress and inconvenience due to the Employer’s maladministration. 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-88223-W0K2

Directions

(i) pay Ms T £1,000 for the serious distress and inconvenience she has experienced;

(ii) produce a schedule (the Schedule) showing the employee contributions deducted from Ms T’s pay in respect of the period of her employment. The Schedule shall also include the corresponding employer contributions that were due to the Plan; and

(iii) forward the Schedule to Ms T.

(i) pay the missing contributions to the Plan;

(ii) establish with the Plan whether the late payment of contributions has meant that fewer units were purchased in Ms T’s Plan account than she would have otherwise secured, had the contributions been paid on time; and

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

Anthony Arter

Pensions Ombudsman 18 November 2022

4 CAS-88223-W0K2 Appendix

Date Employee contributions Employer contributions

31/07/2021 £34.64 Monthly contribution not shown on payslip

31/08/2021 £31.20 Monthly contribution not shown on payslip

30/09/2021 £32.20 Monthly contribution not shown on payslip

31/10/2021 £61.40 Monthly contribution not shown on payslip

30/11/2021 £30.60 Monthly contribution not shown on payslip

Total Unpaid Employee £190.04 Contributions

Total Unpaid Employer Unknown Contributions

5