G Graham introduced J Webster and J Ronson to Members.

 

Members were recommended to:

 

a) Comment on the content of the revised administration update and indicate any areas where they would like to receive further detail

 

b) Highlight any areas of administration where further assurance may be required

 

The Director introduced a report in the absence of the Assistant Director – Pensions

 

Key Points highlighted:

 

Priority performance has reduced by 11% which is a material decline in performance over the quarter. Further investigation of the causes for this found that the main reason was waiting for further information to enable retirement cases to be processed.

 

In relation to aggregations, it is important to understand that the process is in two parts: 1) The quotation stage where the member is provided with details of the impact of combining their various sets of benefits.

2) The settlement stage which occurs automatically 12 months after the quotation unless the member has expressed a preference prior to this.

 

Future reporting will be revised to separate the two stages of the process to allow a clearer understanding of progress to address this issue. The Board welcomed the change in reporting to allow monitoring of progress.

 

While the overall numbers of outstanding cases remain excessive the team have reduced Aggregation Quotes by 1,001 cases.

 

Performance in processing active member retirements clearly needs to be an area of focus.

 

Statutory Disclosure information for this quarter is not available at this time. It will be carried forward into the next quarters report.

 

The percentage of members who have recently retired and are satisfied or very satisfied with their experience of SYPA is back above 90%

 

Feedback for the Customer Centre continues to be positive overall, despite the drop in satisfied responses.

 

For new members who have recently joined the scheme, the satisfaction level drops to 48% A new process has been implemented and is now classed as priority work and is expected to show improvement in the next quarter.

 

A Gregory asked about the reduction in performance in processing death cases.

 

Officers noted that this requires further investigation as there is no obvious reason for this reduction in service levels other than completion of some older and perhaps more complex cases.

 

Standard cases are still being processed in line with previous performance levels.

 

A Gregory followed up asking how disputes regarding complex cases are resolved.

 

In general, a decision is made by the Benefits Team Manager. More difficult cases are referred to the Assistant Director - Pensions.

 

C Scott asked a question regarding what information Team Leaders are using to manage resources, as the information presented is lacking.

 

N Doolan-Hamer sought further clarification on the Aggregations performance and whether it could be being caused by a lack of staff?

 

Officers responded that a capacity planning exercise is being undertaken which will factor into any decision on staffing levels. Specifically, regarding Aggregations there are two main contributing factors: 1) A lack of or delayed response from the scheme member about their preferred option.

2) The makeup of the workforce within Local Government also impacts. Within schools for example, one person can have multiple active records that can be aggregated together. They also operate fixed term contracts for an academic year and then rehire the same person the following year. These also create Aggregation work.

 

A new reporting method will differentiate between those cases waiting for SYPA action and those awaiting a scheme member response.

 

D Webster questioned why it appeared the process took longer for Deferred members using the online portal as opposed to those who didn’t.

 

N Doolan-Hamer sought clarification on the Retirement cases taking over 11 days to process.

 

In response officers advised that some cases are held up due to a lack of information from employers. This can be a particular issue with small employers who only deal with retirements infrequently.

 

R. Nurrennabi brought up the issue of Employer Web Queries not being raised and that scheme members are being advised to chase up the employer themselves.

 

J Webster confirmed that following this being raised at the last meeting, further training has been given to Customer Services staff to remind them that this should only occur if we have attempted and failed to gather the required data several times.

 

N. Gregory noted that this process had helped with flagging up issues with outsourced payroll providers that employers would otherwise been unaware of.

 

C Scott asked for confirmation that J Bailey had sent the agreed letter to employers as per the meeting in November. This relates to informing employers of poor performance where Rotherham provides the payroll service.

 

G Graham agreed to investigate whether the letter had been sent but he was able to provide assurance that the performance of both Rotherham and Sheffield Councils in handling queries had improved markedly.

 

N Gregory noted that Capita are mentioned in every 1/4ly report in response to information being delayed.

 

Officers responded that discussions are held with Capita and performance is kept under review. Due to high turnover of their staff it is often difficult to resolve ongoing problems or have regular contact with the same person.

 

Ultimately, the responsibility for this falls on the employers who use their services.

 

A new, more structured escalation process to emphasise these responsibilities for employers is being developed for incorporation into the Pensions Admin strategy and will be presented at the appropriate time.

 

R. Nurrennabi asked if we could hold AVC providers accountable for delays in providing information as it compromises the Authorities abilities to commence pension payments.

 

A lack of competition makes this difficult to achieve, although this is a national issue which has been raised with providers by the Scheme Advisory Board. A review is being undertaken by Barnett Waddingham on our behalf and further recommendations will be made following that.

 

N Doolan-Hamer noted that the data shows only 62 survey replies were received from over 7000 that were issued. This should be taken as positive since members did not feel strongly enough to complain and are less likely to reply if they’re satisfied with the service. The Chair concurred with this; the data shows the actual number of dissatisfied responses is very low.

 

C. Scott asked about the Actuarial Valuation and if staff/resource pressures could impact on this and other areas the Members need to be aware of.

 

The Director responded that the valuation will be completed on time. The actuary is being used more than is usual and this will incur some cost but is unavoidable due to the current absences.

 

The main impact of the current absences had been identified as slippage on particular projects such as the work in the Pensions Admin System which will not be ready when expected. There could also be an impact on degree of impetus and leadership that could be provided for other priority work such as the McCloud Judgement and the introduction of the Pensions Dashboard.

 

The Chair thanked Officers for the report and the responses to questions.