Client feedback


In my experience, not all professional trustees are able to cope with tricky or potentially confrontational situations. I find PSGS has massive experience in getting involved, earning the respect of others and resolving such issues. They get stuck in – they are a first rate team.
Katherine Dandy,
Partner at Sackers & Partners
As a pensions novice, I felt that the trustee training course gave me a good grounding.
Will Court
Highly informative. Having leading professionals deliver the TKU course really adds value.
Jonathan Williams ,
Bangor University
So much more proactive than the previous company. On the ball - thinking in advance of things needing doing - very proactive.
Paul Rudd ,
Chairman of Trustees, Express Newspaper
​I enjoy working with PSGS and we have a very positive relationship. I was new to pensions and found them very helpful.
Bruce Allison,
RTUK
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

A generational divide in communications?

Top tips for pensions communications often suggest using a mix of media and varying design layouts as different people respond to different things in different ways (or not at all). ‘Tailor your message’ is another frequent (and quite correct) one that hints at the use of language. Something we don’t hear about much is grammar and spelling and how this has changed across generations.

A dependent dependant

My colleague, Gillian Graham, got me thinking about this again recently. She’d (or would you prefer ‘she had’?) felt a bit of a grumpy old woman (her words) when she found herself irritated reading a pensions article where the author had fallen into the common trap of spelling dependant incorrectly. When referring to the noun, it is a dependant of a member and a dependant’s pension. If using the adjective, it is a dependent spouse or a person who is dependent on someone else.

Is she right? Well, yes and no. Yes, because that’s exactly what traditional British English grammar tells us. No, because using ‘dependent’ as a noun has become accepted practice (see Lexico) and ‘dependant’ doesn’t exist in American English, which has become a big influence on our language culture.

What I’m Saying Is Important

My personal bugbear is the spurious use of capital letters. Intentionally typing that sub-heading has made me feel queasy. It seems, as time has gone on, it has become acceptable to capitalise almost anything. It is very important, so I must use capitals. It is or might be a name, so I must use capitals. (There is a difference between a noun and a proper noun.) It’s a title, so I must use capitals. (Why on earth would you capitalise a connecting word?) Don’t get me started…

Split infinitive’s (yes, I know, read on…)

Generalising somewhat, it feels the misuse of apostrophes is perfectly fine with those from generations younger than mine. Particularly when it comes to plurals. It winds me up, as it does many from an older generation that tends to include pension trustees and scheme pensioners.

Several years ago, an older colleague reviewed something I had drafted. He pulled me up on a split infinitive (‘to boldly go’ being the most famous). Marked by traditional English grammatical standards, he was right. Putting the modern context hat on, I was. I pointed him to a University of Bristol’s Faculty of Arts resource:

“Split infinitives have, traditionally, been regarded by some commentators as anathema, something to be avoided at all costs. There is no rational basis for this rule; splitting infinitives is commonplace in spoken language, and even in written English it may be clearer or more elegant to do so.”

He gallantly accepted my argument, but it really does highlight generational differences. For older generations, traditional spelling, grammar and punctuation really matter. For many of the younger generation they don’t. That’s something worth remembering when you’re creating pension communications.

What about me in the middle? Well, I once felt comfortable with modern language and grammar, but I’m now also starting to feel a bit of a grumpy old woman as things move on again! I’d love to hear your thoughts.

Thank you/Thanks/Thx*

*delete as applicable

PS The grammar and punctuation in the above blog will, almost certainly, be technically incorrect somewhere. I’m perfectly comfortable with this. I sincerely hope there are no spelling mistakes though!

 

 

Back to opinions

 

Hot Topic
Trusteeship is all about relationships

2 Jul 2020

Making relationships work well should be considered an art form . From experience, it’s one I know a professional trustee needs to be a master...

Investment with the benefit of hindsight

11 Jun 2020

With all the turmoil we’ve seen in investment markets recently, I thought it would be interesting to look at what pension schemes should have...

Master trusts: the future directions for these popular schemes

26 May 2020

In a nutshell, the future of defined contribution (DC) pension master trusts is they will be bigger and better, but there’s a risk they’ll become...

More opinions »

Call: 0845 313 0024

online enquiry