View more on these topics

Claire Trott: The worrying rise of pension schemes holding wrong information

The key message for advisers is: check, check and check again

There has been an increase in media coverage recently highlighting the growing issue of pension schemes holding wrong or missing information.

This can happen where schemes have moved from being paper-based to computerised, or simply from one system to another, and human errors have occurred when inputting data.

Incorrect information can have a huge impact on those retiring both now or in the near future. In the main, it is a problem relating to defined benefit schemes that have been running for many years.

Clients are likely to be completely unaware of what to look for in their calculations and paperwork. Such calculations are highly complex and establishing whether there is a problem at the point of retirement is not usually something they will be able to do themselves. They will need help from an adviser.

Of course, clients must keep as many records as possible regarding their pension scheme and entitlements but even with all of this, trying to establish what they should be getting at retirement can be very tricky, particularly as scheme rules have a tendency to change over the years.

My frustration is that we should not even be discussing this. Pension scheme members have worked hard over many years; they and their employers have ploughed thousands of pounds into plans to achieve a good retirement income. When it comes to receiving benefits, they deserve to be sure they are getting what they paid for.

Knock-on effects

One case I recently heard of involved a pension being incorrectly calculated, meaning the client had received less than they should have done over the last few years. They are now having their pension and multiple years of increases recalculated.

The real issue here is that any correction could tip them over into the next tax rate banding for a single year. Should those that have had to pay extra tax due to an error seek compensation?

There are other complications that could occur because of such an error.

Due to the benefit crystallisation event having to be recalculated, additional contributions may have been made, but it is more likely funds will have been crystallised elsewhere. In a worst-case scenario, the client may have unintentionally breached their lifetime allowance.

Who is responsible for sorting out the mess created? The original scheme will not be aware of what other pensions the member had and the second scheme that crystallised benefits will have been working on the information provided to them in good faith by their member. Given the member had no reason to doubt the information provided in the first place, can they really be held accountable?

Another issue that may occur due to incorrect calculations will be the member’s entitlement to the pension commencement lump sum. It is highly likely that, because the original calculation was too low, the amount of PCLS offered would not be the full entitlement. This is something the member might have needed or wanted at the time but may now not be entitled to.

 Check and check again

The key message for advisers is: check, check and check again. Unfortunately, these errors occur all too often, so you cannot assume the calculations coming from the pension scheme are correct.

For the simpler final salary schemes, it is always wise to try and estimate what the pension should be and, if the client is still there, to check the pension statement annually. Ongoing issues could cause an annual allowance problem if the pension is suddenly increased one year.

It can be more difficult to check the figures for more complex multiple tranche schemes and career averaged schemes. However, making sure they have the correct service and salary details should help prevent any significant errors that will need to be sorted out in the future.

If errors are found, the biggest challenge is being able to get them rectified in a reasonable time scale.

Claire Trott is head of pensions strategy at Technical Connection


Hall-Dennis-Yellowtail-2013 700 x 450.jpg

Dennis Hall: Fixed fees shift will soon gather pace

I was at a dinner earlier this year discussing the future of adviser businesses, when the person next to me mentioned they had recently transitioned to a flat fee model. “That’s interesting,” I said. The flat fee model is something I struggle with. Conceptually I like the idea, but I have not been able to […]


False qualifications on adviser directories exposed again

Two thirds of financial advisers could be misleading the public over their qualifications on online directories such as Unbiased and the Money Advice Service, an investigation has found. Research by Which? found that across 43 firms on Unbiased, over 63 per cent of these didn’t have advisers holding the relevant qualifications from the Chartered Institute […]


Gina Miller-led manager launches new Sipp as it reforms fees

SCM Direct has tweaked the fees on its digital offering in response to the upcoming Mifid II rules as it launches a new Sipp account. The company, headed by prominent anti-Brexit campaigner Gina Miller and her husband Alan, claims the changes to the platform will make it one of the cheapest digital wealth managers in […]

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition

Paul Fidell, Head of Business Development (Investments), writes about one of the primary challenges for those involved in estate planning. He looks at dealing with investment uncertainty in these low growth, low inflation but still volatile investment conditions. Protection of capital, to leave something for beneficiaries, is a fundamental objective of many people’s plans for […]


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up


There are 3 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Gaining information from any Defined Benefits trustees is like playing Russian roulette.

    You never know what you will actually get back having requested information and what they will refuse to disclose. I won’t start on the time they take to answer any additional request, knowing full well their member is on a three month deadline.

    We are told we need to disclose and compare many factors when advising, but often this is impossible, as the trustee refuses to disclose the information.

    Take commutation factors and early retirement penalties, we have had many schemes refuse to provide this information, stating these change or we don’t disclose these. As an adviser can only compare as at today, the fact they can change is immaterial. It amazes me they can and are allowed to just say, no, we will not let you have this information.

    It then becomes difficult to compare and leaving advisers having to use assumptions. We all know assume (AS out of U & ME) can lead to a world of pain and problems for all concerned.

    To asses any scheme there should be a set disclosure requirement, required by all pension trustees to provide, which currently does not exist. It is time the pension regulator introduced such a requirement.

  2. WillisTowersWatson have recently informed me that they’d mistakenly calculated my Final Pensionable Salary, and it had now been reduced by some 20%. For some reason though, they assure me that my CETV has always been correct.

    I struggle to believe this.

    If my CETV really WAS correct, then they’ve given out woefully inaccurate information meaning that any calculation of Critical Yield based on the higher FPS will be far too high and any decision I’ve made about whether or not to transfer is based on duff information.

    Even stranger, the DB scheme it relates to (which was fully funded at last Triennial) actually reduced my CETV by some 17% immediately after BREXIT – while long term Gilt yields fell.

    I feel a formal Complaint is in order.

  3. Claire, interesting article. As there is more consolidation including buy-outs etc this is a growing problem. The TCF perspective could also hit insurers (where relevant) hard.

Leave a comment