The Pensions Ombudsman (TPO) has upheld a complaint against Digital Express Limited for failing to pay contributions into a worker’s pension due to maladministration.

The employer was ordered to pay £1,312.50 into the scheme, as well as ensure that the complainant, Mr S, was not financially disadvantaged by its maladministration by arranging for any investment loss to be calculated and paid into the scheme.

Additionally, the employer was ordered to pay Mr S £1,000 for the “serious distress and inconvenience” it has caused him.

Mr S complained that the employer, despite deducting contributions from his pay, failed to pay them into the scheme, and in March 2023 he brought this complaint to TPO.

TPO conversed with the scheme administrator to confirm the date of the last contribution paid and the amount of unpaid contributions.

Following this, TPO asked the employer for its formal response to Mr S’ complaint twice but received no response.

The case was then passed on to an adjudicator who concluded that further action was required by the employer as it had failed to remit the contributions due to the scheme.

The adjudicator said based on the information provided by Mr S and the scheme administrator, that, on the balance of probabilities, £912.25 in employee contributions and £400.25 in employer contributions, a total of £1,312.50 had not been remitted to the scheme.

It added that due to the employer’s maladministration, Mr S was not in the financial position he ought to be in, therefore an award of £1,000 for non-financial injustice was appropriate in the circumstances.

The employer did not respond to the adjudicator's opinion, so the complaint was passed over to the ombudsman, Dominic Harris, to consider and he agreed with the adjudicator's opinion.

In his decision, Harris said: “Mr S has complained that the employer has not paid all the contributions due to his scheme account.

“From the evidence available to me, I find that employee contributions were deducted but held back by the employer and not paid into the scheme.

“The employer failed to rectify this and did not engage with TPO or Mr S. It has also failed to respond to the adjudicator’s decision.

“Mr S is entitled to a distress and inconvenience award in respect of the serious ongoing non-financial injustice which he has suffered.

“This was exacerbated by the employer’s failure to respond during TPO’s investigation into Mr S’ complaint, which undoubtedly caused Mr S further distress and inconvenience.”

---