Agenda item

This report provides a summary of administration and governance issues reviewed by the Local Pension Board (the Board) at its last meeting (26 July 2024) for noting or actioning by the Pension Fund Committee (the Committee).

Speakers:

Tim Evans, Chairman of Local Pension Board

Tom Lewis, Head of Service Delivery

Neil Mason, Assistant Director – LGPS Senior Officer

Key points raised in the discussion:

1.    The Chairman of the Board highlighted that the issues with the Unit 4/MySurrey system had many consequences for the Council and the impact on the administration of the Scheme was considerable. Both he and the Committee’s Chairman were attending monthly progress meetings to resolve the issues; the project deadline was March 2025. He also noted the letter from the Minister on pooling.

2.    The Head of Service Delivery noted that he was a member of the newly established MySurrey Stabilisation Board so could ensure that the developments were fit for purpose. He welcomed the ring-fenced budget to address the critical improvements. Pensions work was a priority in the first workstream, the team was nearing the point where the reports could be run live. 2,000 cases had been unable to be processed due to the MySurrey issues, adjustments were being made. The incorrect configuration of contribution deductions was an issue, and work was needed on data rectification as the data migrated was insufficient. For the active membership 94% of Annual Benefit Statements had been delivered, that figure would be 97% in line with previous years, excluding the 88% figure for the County Council employees. An impact assessment rated the risk situation at Amber as there were efforts to fix the issues and an update would be provided to the Regulator.

3.    Responding to the Chairman, the Head of Service Delivery clarified that the contact with the Regulator was from the enrolment office around monthly returns.

4.    A Committee member noted that significant issues remained to resolve data quality. He asked what the current impact risk score was. The Head of Service Delivery noted that the score was at a sufficient level at 16/20, as timely services were maintained for those retiring or in need of an immediate benefit.

5.    A Committee member asked whether the Committee could formally note its concern to Cabinet or Council as the service provided was negatively impacting the Fund members. The Chairman noted that he and the Chairman of the Board, had raised it formally and discussed the matter with the Section 151 Officer. A Committee member noted that the Resources and Performance Select Committee had revisited how far the Lessons Learned Review was embedded in, and that the report was welcomed by Cabinet. The Assistant Director – LGPS Senior Officer explained that as a result of the letter to the Section 151 Officer, there had been workshops including the lead Cabinet Member. Greater resource and commitment had been provided by the Council, and there was a positive trajectory.

6.    A Committee member hoped that once an adequate Service Level Agreement was in place, there would be recompense. He stressed that data quality should have been sorted out before the information was transferred.

7.    A Committee member explained that the Council had intended to change its supplier, however the existing provider gave little warning that they would stop providing the previous software. The task and finish group recommended that for future acquisitions a detailed review must be undertaken of the outcomes, and the transfer to MySurrey should have been done properly rather than too rapidly. The Chairman would jointly with the Chairman of the Board, follow-up the previous letter calling for adequate resources to meet the March 2025 deadline.

8.    A Committee member emphasised that the Council should have had a contingency plan, and it should have accurately exported the data. There was a commercial relationship between a customer and a provider, and the supplier should be asked to recompense Fund members. The Chairman noted that Fund members could go through the Internal Dispute Resolution Procedure (IDRP) or go to the Regulator. The Assistant Director – LGPS Senior Officer noted that if the IDRP was invoked, compensation was awarded where appropriate, and the cost recharged to the Council as the responsible employer. 

RESOLVED:

1.    Noted the content of this report.

2.    Made no recommendations to the Local Pension Board.

3.    Delegated the Chairmen of the Committee and the Board to take the matter regarding MySurrey further with the appropriate officers at the Council.

Actions/further information to be provided:

1.    7/24 - The Chairman will jointly with the Chairman of the Board, follow-up the previous letter calling for adequate resources to meet the March 2025 deadline to resolve Unit4/MySurrey issues.