Nest · CAS-32392-R4T8

CAS-32392-R4T8

Ombudsman’s Determination Applicant Mrs Y

Scheme NEST

Respondent Bolton Textiles (Group) Limited (BTGL)

Outcome

Complaint summary

Background information, including submissions from the parties Mrs Y was an employee of Bolton Textiles Ltd for over 27 years.

In May 2017 Bolton Textiles Ltd went into administration, a process which was managed by RSM Manchester (the administrators). As part of the administration process the administrators transferred certain assets of Bolton Textiles Ltd to BTGL.

On 25 March 2017, the administrators completed a transfer of all employees from Bolton Textiles Ltd to BTGL. This meant that BTGL now had responsibility for ensuring it met the legal obligations for all Bolton Textiles Ltd employees.

In August 2018, Bolton Textiles Ltd was dissolved.

On 30 December 2018, NEST wrote to Mrs Y to say that it was reporting BTGL to The Pensions Regulator (TPR) because it had not paid contributions for the period 31

1 CAS-32392-R4T8 August 2018 to 6 September 2018 even though it had been sent several reminders, which “breached their legal duty as an employer”.

On receipt of this letter, Mrs Y said that she questioned BTGL about the missing contributions, and it informed her that this would be rectified.

Mrs Y was sent further letters from NEST to the same effect on, but not limited to, the following dates: -

• 6 January 2019

• 10 February 2019

• 17 March 2019

• 7 April 2019

• 8 May 2019

Mrs Y made a further complaint to BTGL about the missing contributions, but she did not receive a response. So, in June 2019 Mrs Y brought the complaint The Pensions Ombudsman (TPO) to be considered.

On 6 November 2019, TPO wrote to BTGL asking for a response to the complaint.

On 8 November 2019, BTGL provided its final response. The response included a number of derogatory comments about Mrs Y personally and about her employment. The salient points in the response in relation to Mrs Y’s complaint are as follows:-

• It agreed that contributions had not been paid. This was because the company did not make enough profit to accommodate pension payments and increases in minimum wage.

• It would resolve the issue when its financial circumstances improved.

Further attempts were made to resolve the matter informally with BTGL, but these were unsuccessful.

Adjudicator’s Opinion

2 CAS-32392-R4T8

Mrs Y accepted the Adjudicator’s Opinion. BTGL did not provide a response.

Ombudsman’s decision

3 CAS-32392-R4T8

Directions Within 28 days of the date of this Determination BTGL shall:

• pay Mrs Y £1,000 for the serious distress and inconvenience caused to her.

• produce a schedule showing the employee contributions deducted from Mrs Y’s salary that have not been remitted to NEST for each month of her employment. The schedule should also include the corresponding employer contributions that were due. • forward the schedule to Mrs Y for her to agree.

• within 14 days of Mrs Y’s agreement to the schedule, it shall pay the missing employer and employee contributions to NEST.

• within 14 days of paying the missing contributions, it shall also establish with NEST whether the late payment of contributions has meant fewer units were purchased in Mrs Y’s NEST account than would have been bought if the contributions had been paid on time;

• if a unit shortfall is identified, BTGL shall meet the cost of correcting it.

Anthony Arter

Pensions Ombudsman 3 March 2022

4