Nearly two-thirds (62 per cent) of UK pension schemes have no plans to review or benchmark their administration arrangements, despite increasing regulatory scrutiny and growing expectations around member outcomes, research from Law Debenture has revealed.

The study, which surveyed trustees from 119 UK defined benefit (DB) and defined contribution (DC) pension schemes, found that while 38 per cent of schemes are either planning or considering an administration review or replacement, the majority are taking no action.

The findings follow The Pensions Regulator's (TPR) updated administration guidance, published in December 2025, which reiterated that trustees remain legally responsible for the quality of pension administration services, even when these services are outsourced.

However, according to the research, just 16 per cent of schemes are currently benchmarking their administration provider, 14 per cent are carrying out service reviews, and 8 per cent are actively seeking a replacement provider.

Among those looking to change administrators, four in five (80 per cent) cited poor service as the primary reason, with project delivery identified as a particular area of concern.

The research also suggested that schemes focused on their long-term endgame objectives could be overlooking administrative governance.

Indeed, of the schemes not planning an administration review, 37 per cent said this was because their focus was on endgame planning, such as buyout or consolidation.

Law Debenture warned that failing to prioritise administration and data quality before a transaction could create inefficiencies, delays, and poorer member outcomes during the transition process.

Commenting on the findings, Law Debenture head of pensions growth, Sankar Mahalingham, said: "Member expectations have been fundamentally reshaped by the digital world.

"Accustomed to frictionless service in banking and retail, members now apply those same standards to their retirement. When administration falls short - through poor communication, data errors or slow processing - the impact is often felt during the most emotionally and financially significant moments of a member's life."

Mahalingham suggested that, while some trustee boards are taking action, many remain reactive in their approach to administration oversight.

"For many schemes, administration only rises to the top of the boardroom agenda when risks or failures have already manifested - often when it is too late to prevent member harm," he added.

"The question facing trustees is no longer simply whether their administrator is performing, but whether they have the governance frameworks in place to properly assess and oversee that performance."

---