The Assistant Director – Pensions presented the Pensions Administration Performance Update Quarter 2 2024/25 to the Local Pensions Board.

Members asked about new starters and their additional training that was putting a strain on progress clearing the backlog and asked when recruits would be fully trained. The Assistant Director – Pensions explained that there was a detailed training plan that focussed on staff hitting quality targets rather than following a fixed timeline. It was explained that some staff can progress faster than others but that it was important to progress the team as a group to ensure the workload was shared effectively and ensure there was an even knowledge spread.

The Independent Adviser stated that it would be useful for the Board to see the actual service targets and KPIs to give them context on how the targets are decided and their value to members. The Assistant Director – Pensions advised that they had a project planned to assess the targets and that these findings would be shared with the Board.

The Independent Adviser expressed that it would be of use for the Board to be made aware of the total number of cases for processing coming in as this would help them analyse how resources are being utilised and what impact the backlog is having on business as usual. The Independent Adviser requested the Board be given the updated target dates for completion of the backlog.

Members queried what proportion of case processing was automated. The Assistant Director – Pensions explained that the UPM system processes the casework but trained staff are needed to input the data correctly, check the calculations are correct and regularly make manual calculations.

The Board queried whether there was any data on the number of phone calls received and the answering speeds and outcomes. The Assistant Director explained that there was data on phone calls, waiting times, email response times and many other metrics that they want to analyse but that this data needed to be put onto a metrics dashboard which was part of a project being managed by the Services Managers in Customer Services and Programmes and Performance and the results will feed into future reports for the Board to see.

The Independent Adviser requested the Breaches Register be brought to the Board annually so that the Board could understand the methodology and rationale around how breaches are assessed for materiality. The Assistant Director – Pensions gave a more detailed explanation on breaches and assured the Board that, while every breach was reported, nothing in the last 6 months had been classed as material and required reporting to The Pensions Regulator.

Members asked for more detail on why the Process Improvements project was running late and more information on how the project had progressed from the previous quarter. The Assistant Director – Pensions explained that this was due to lack of resources and prioritisation of the project but that the delay had enabled the team to use the very latest guidance from the LGA and provide the learning needed to progress. The Assistant Director agreed to include a progress comparison with the previous quarter in subsequent reports.

The Board asked for a timeframe around the development and implementation of the system functionality to facilitate the McCloud Project and any risks or consequences for not meeting the statutory deadlines. The Assistant Director – Pensions explained that the system provider had shared their planned progress with SYPA and began stage 2 of the implementation with testing underway. It was explained that the delay in progress of getting the new system module fully functional did pose a risk that SYPA would not be able to meet the statutory deadline of 1 August 2025 for retrospective changes to benefits under the McCloud Remedy. It was explained that this was due to delays caused by resource shortages at the system provider and that this affected a large number of LGPS Funds who are also reliant on this software to be able to follow the timeline in the

guidance. It was emphasised that SYPA have been and are engaging actively on this matter with our software provider.

Members asked further questions on the McCloud Project querying how cases needing processing would be prioritised effectively, whether there was a plan for implementation and if it could be brought to the Board, how scheme members are or would be made aware of the McCloud Remedy and whether the regulator was aware of the issues with the software.

The Assistant Director – Pensions explained that priority McCloud cases would be scheme members leavers but that there was a plan to prioritise effectively, that the plan was in phase 2 and that an overview could be brought to the February meeting, that scheme members were being kept aware of the McCloud Remedy and how it affected them in regular member newsletters and information sent annually to deferred members and that there was no provision for reporting the software provider as they had not yet breached any agreements but that progress was being closely monitored and that SYPA, along with other LGPS peer funds awaiting the software development were meeting to compare progress and service provision.

The Independent Adviser asked for more detail on the technical steering group who are meeting quarterly to decide on the Pension Administration system developments and improvements to be taken forward for the following quarter. The Assistant Director – Pensions explained that this steering group was an internal group of senior officers who meet to prioritise work as needed and ensure all stakeholders were kept aware of progress.

The Board questioned the progress on selecting an integrated service provider (ISP) for the Pension Dashboards project. The Assistant Director - Pensions explained that an ISP was due for selection at the end of November 2024 and that an explanation of the thorough process and assessment to reach the decision would be presented to the Board at the next opportunity.

Members praised the value of the table in the report showing the Summary of Employer Queries and asked what the most common issues raised were. The Assistant Director – Pensions explained that the table was used to show which employer was in touch most frequently and with which enquiry which allowed the Pensions team to target training, support and resources efficiently.

The Board commented on the on time delivery the Pension Saving Statements and asked whether this was the first time the project had been undertaken in-house. The Assistant Director – Pensions explained that this project had been contracted to external actuaries in the several previous years but that is was undertaken in house this time and will be done so going forward and that this represented significant learning and a great achievement for the Benefits team.

RESOLVED: Members noted the contents of the report.