Pensions Ombudsman determination

Nest · CAS-82691-F9L6

Complaint upheldRedress £1,0002022
Get your free legal insight →Email to a colleague
Get your free legal insight on this case →

Verbatim text of this Pensions Ombudsman determination. Sourced directly from the Pensions Ombudsman published register. The Pensions Ombudsman is a statutory tribunal — its determinations are public record. Not an AI summary, not a paraphrase.

Full determination

CAS-82691-F9L6

Ombudsman’s Determination Applicant Mr N

Scheme NEST (the Scheme)

Respondent Car Dealer Media Limited (the Employer)

Outcome

Complaint summary

Background information, including submissions from the parties In November 2018, Mr N began his employment with the Employer.

On 10 January 2022, Mr N brought his complaint to The Pensions Ombudsman (TPO).

Mr N said that the Employer failed to pay contributions into the Scheme between July 2020 and November 2021. Mr N provided copies of the payslips that he held for the period from January 2021 to August 2021, which detailed the pension contributions deducted from his pay and the corresponding employer contributions. A breakdown of the contributions has been included in the Appendix.

Mr N has told TPO that he is unable to provide more payslips as he did not receive all of his payslips from the Employer.

1 CAS-82691-F9L6

Caseworker’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. She said that, as the Employer had not responded to any of TPO’s communications, she had to base her Opinion solely on the information provided by Mr N.

• The Caseworker said that she had no reason to doubt the information provided by Mr N. So, in the Caseworker’s Opinion, on the balance of probabilities, contributions had been deducted from Mr N’s salary, that had not been paid into the Scheme. 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, Mr N was not in the financial position he ought to be in.

• In the Caseworker’s view, Mr N had suffered significant distress and inconvenience due to the Employer’s maladministration. The Caseworker was of the view that an award of £500 for non-financial injustice was appropriate in the circumstances.

Ombudsman’s decision

2 CAS-82691-F9L6

Directions

(i) pay Mr N £1,000 for the serious distress and inconvenience he has experienced;

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

(iii) forward the Schedule to Mr N.

(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 Mr N’s Scheme account than he would have otherwise secured, had the contributions been paid on time; and

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

Within 14 days of receiving confirmation from NEST of any shortfall in Mr N’s units, pay the cost of purchasing any additional units required to make up the shortfall.

Anthony Arter

Pensions Ombudsman 16 November 2022

3 CAS-82691-F9L6 Appendix

Date Employee contributions Employer contributions

31/08/2021 £109.87 £82.40

31/07/2021 £109.87 £82.40

30/06/2021 £109.87 £82.40

31/05/2021 £109.87 £82.40

30/04/2021 £109.87 £82.40

31/03/2021 £109.87 £82.40

28/02/2021 £109.87 £82.40

31/01/2021 £109.87 £82.40

4