The Director presented the Pensions Administration Performance Update for Quarter 3 2024/25 and introduced the Service Managers for Customer Services, Employer Services and Technical and Training Support who had contributed to the report.

Members had a number of queries on the McCloud project and asked for further details on progress, deadlines and timelines.

The Director explained that the LGPS deadline for including the McCloud remedy in annual benefit statements (ABS’s) was scheduled for 31 August 2025 but that, as ABSs for deferred members of SYPA were due to be sent before May 2025, and if the software was still not functional, meeting this deadline might not be possible. The Service Manager – Customer Services explained that all members would still receive their ABSs even if they were unable to add the McCloud calculation with a note that an adjustment was to follow. It was explained that the guidance allowed an administering authority to determine that the McCloud implementation phase be extended to 31st August 2026 for specific members or classes of members and that while such cases have yet to be determined, and the detail of this legislation known, this might be necessary considering the software development delays.

The Independent Adviser queried whether making the McCloud calculation without the software was possible. The Director explained that the software was needed to perform bulk calculations and that the availability of resources to undertake the work manually was unrealistic. It was explained that there had been considerable contingency planning due to the ongoing software delays but that recruitment of temporary staff and/or introducing more overtime was not feasible due to the skillset of staff needed and the welfare of staff. The Director explained that outsourcing the work remained a possibility but that the cost may be prohibitively high.

Members asked for more detail on the software development delay, any action that had been made to address or escalate the issue and how peers in the industry were affected.

The Director explained that SYPA had constant engagement with Civica, the software provider, and the main problem cited was lack of staff to develop the software to the necessary standard. It was explained a letter of concern had been sent to Civica by a number of customers which they had acknowledged by email and that they had also scheduled a meeting with the Assistant Director – Pensions. It was explained that the software delays represented a significant risk which also affected other LGPS peers who were waiting on Civica. It was explained that there were other suppliers of the software and that other authorities using these other suppliers were slightly ahead in terms of implementing the remedy but that alternative systems had different strengths and weaknesses and that any change of system represented a high level of complex work for all administering authorities. It was stressed that changing supplier at this stage would be difficult and complicated and involve contract and procurement considerations. It was explained that SYPA was in contact with LGPS peers to escalate the issue to Civica en masse but that the ability to force action was limited due to Civica’s lack of resources.

The Independent Adviser asked how Civica had responded, as this was a major contract for the Authority. An email response had been received which mentioned a roadmap being produced. Further contact was planned.

Members asked whether the backlog of work yet to be cleared was on track and whether this could affect the valuation.

The Director explained that clearance of the backlog was on schedule to be completed by the end of 2025 but that priority was being given to issues that would have most benefit ahead of the valuation, in particular, processing unprocessed leavers. The Director explained that this involved contacting employers and

resolving data issues and that, while there was a lot of cross over between projects and teams when resolving these issues, progress was being made.

Members asked whether staff had received sufficient recent training on breaches and queried whether there may have been breaches before this training that SYPA were unaware of.

The Director confirmed that there had been recent specialised training on breaches for relevant staff and that this had resulted in a higher number of breaches captured in this report. It was explained that it was expected that historical breaches had now been captured and that there was no evidence of reportable or systemic breaches but that continually updating processes and training in this area was necessary.

Members noted that while the number of complaints made was low, responses to feedback surveys reported 2% of customers were ‘Very Dissatisfied’ and queried whether this figure should be included with complaints.

The Service Manager – Customer Services explained that only complaints that had gone through the official complaints procedure were counted as complaints. The Director added that this method of reporting complaints was consistent across the LGPS but that it did possibly underrepresent complaints and a method of analysing all feedback to gain a more accurate picture would be advantageous. It was added that negative feedback from surveys was picked up, recorded and acted upon, with the customer contacted as necessary but that it still did not count as an official complaint until the customer used the complaints procedure.

Members asked for updates on the valuation process. The Independent Adviser stated that it would be useful for the Board to see the draft FSS before the formal consultation. The Director that it would be possible to bring a paper to the summer meeting, to consult on any changes.

Members asked for clarity on what Preserved Refunds meant to the Authority. The Service Manager – Technical and Training Support explained that Preserved Refunds were funds for those who had left an employer and paid contributions for under 2 years and were not entitled to a pension or lump sum. The Service Manager explained that SYPA made contact with the leaver and gave them the options on what to do with their contributions but that the funds for any potential pay outs were preserved until the leaver provided instructions.

Members asked for explanations for the tables showing Members Unprocessed by Employer. The Assistant Director – Resources and the Service Manager – Employer Services explained that these tables had been developed by the Service Manager – Programmes and Performance to aid officers in targeting employers with the largest proportional number of unprocessed members to best utilise resources in clearing the backlog and reducing liability assumptions ahead of the valuation. It was noted that Councils were left out of these tables due to their size compared to other employers. The Director explained that the tables were given as examples of the information available from the system, included to give assurance to the Board that the information was available and was being used. They were illustrative of the thought processes of the Administration team, who could drill down into the information to focus on particular areas or employers.

Members asked if the Pension Dashboards project was still on track and the Director stated the target date of connection of the Authority to the Pension Dashboards ecosystem via an integrated service provider by October 2025 was still expected. A data improvement plan was being developed, which could be shared with the Board at a later meeting.

RESOLVED: Members noted the contents of this report.