Client feedback

​I would recommend them to anyone - I have dealt with a number of other independent trustee firms and would rate PSGS as the best. We are very happy with Mark and the service we get.
Julia Morton,
Camellia plc
They have helped us save much more and created a cohesive plan to de-risk whilst building an integrated pension team.
Sally-Anne Borrill,
Many organisations and people provide the services that clients need. In my opinion, the differentiator is in the way those services are provided and to that extent, Kathy embodies the qualities that I have come to value from PSITL. Kathy is organised but not fussy; diligent but not dogmatic; persistent without being pushy and compliant in a pragmatic way. Whilst she takes ownership and drives issues forward, Kathy is a team player who uses her and her colleagues experience to provide services to her trustee client whilst working closely with those like me representing the sponsoring employer. She works collaboratively with advisers but constructively challenges the scope of services, fees and service standards whenever necessary and makes sure that member needs are always taken into account. I enjoy working with her and trust that she will deliver what is required by the trustee and the members they represent in a manner satisfactory to the sponsoring employer.
Stuart Barker,
Internal Pensions Consultant, RSPCA
Ever increasing regulation has placed a heavy burden on trustees both in terms of time and the risk of non-compliance. PSGS has the experience and the resources to help trustees manage these burdens.
Mark Atkinson,
Partner at CMS Cameron McKenna
PSGS was chosen because of their knowledge of the subject and awareness of our particular schemes.
George Batho ,
Trustee, Lansing Linde
These days, Boards need real expertise on tap (with excellent back-up) to cope with a constantly evolving and more regulated environment. PSGS is geared to delivering that.
Ray Pygott,
Partner at KPMG LLP

Think data accuracy, not just data

Data, data, data, data - it really is a buzz word in the pensions world at the moment. What with GDPR knocking at the door, the Pensions Regulator (tPR) requirements for common and conditional data in pension Scheme Returns and GMP reconciliations already through the door and pensions dashboards coming up the drive, it is a topic we aren’t going to escape any time soon.

Accurate data is a heart

Without it, the running of a pension scheme could suffer. Get a blockage and problems could occur that may be catastrophic. Incorrect benefits valued and paid, additional funding concerns and increased costs for employers…

Accurate data gives pension trustees a solid foundation that is key to funding discussions with the employer and ensuring liability reduction exercises (such as pension buy-ins or buy-outs) are more cost effective and more timely.

Previously, focus for pension trustees has been on gaps in data but it also really needs to be on ensuring data already held is correct. So, how do trustees know if their data is less than accurate?

The clues are out there…

Clue number 1: the results from your Guaranteed Minimum Pension (GMP) reconciliation. Members appear on HMRC records but not on your scheme administrator’s (or vice versa). Pension schemes with complex histories and benefit structures will more than likely have issues.

Clue number 2: your pension scheme has a history of different administrators. Inaccuracies caused when data isn’t transitioned correctly or scheme knowledge is not documented and lost.

Clue number 3: your pension scheme has seen previous merger or acquisition activity. Corporate transactions affecting a pension scheme tend to bring with them changes to benefit structures, new categories of member, benefit guarantees etc. They can all too easily contribute to errors in scheme or member data.

It isn’t all the administrator’s fault

Data errors don’t always occur because the pension scheme administrator has been poor at record keeping. Yes, transitions between administrators in the past have contributed to the problem – which we are seeing in the results of GMP reconciliation etc - but, in my experience, it is usually a combination of errors.

‘At source’ errors are quite commonplace - for example, incorrect pensionable salaries provided by the employer to the administrator. Including allowances that are not pensionable is a great example - or forgetting to include an allowance that is pensionable. Issues with part-time and maternity service and pay are another classic. The list goes on…..

Once diagnosed, what’s the treatment?

This really depends on the issues found and the cost benefit analysis of rectification or acceptance of the data as it is. Ongoing prevention to stay fit and healthy could be regular independent data audits – check-ups if you like. At the very least, your scheme actuary can give a professional view on data quality as part of pension scheme valuation process by looking at changes year on year etc.

Tighter controls for administration transitions are a must. Training and documented procedures for all data processors should include data awareness. The big picture is important - all those involved in a scheme (including the pension trustees) need to know what data is provided by whom and when, how it is or will be used in the future and the implications if something goes wrong.

It really is time for pension trustees to make a permanent ‘lifestyle’ change and get their scheme data into shape. I genuinely believe small, steady and regular changes will make a difference!



Back to opinions


Call: 0845 313 0024

online enquiry