HL UK Pension Law Digest 25 June 2026

Welcome to our latest update, in which we cover:

• The Financial Conduct Authority consults on new rules for self-invested personal pension operators
  • The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has published a consultation on proposals to support consistent standards in self-invested personal pensions (SIPPs);
• The Pensions Dashboards Programme publishes the outcome of its consultation on changes to its reporting standards
  • The Pensions Dashboards Programme (PDP) has published the outcome of its consultation on proposals to implement routine daily reporting of data to the Money and Pensions Service (MaPS);
• The Pensions Ombudsman considers requirements on transfers without consent
  • The Pensions Ombudsman (TPO) has determined that a trustee of a defined contribution (DC) scheme was not required to consult deferred members on a bulk transfer to an authorised Master Trust.

The Financial Conduct Authority consults on new rules to improve consistency of standards in self-invested personal pensions 

On 22 June, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) published its consultation paper: CP26/20: Adapting our rules for a changing market: self-invested personal pensions. The consultation proposes new rules for firms operating self-invested personal pensions (SIPPs), to strengthen consumer protections in relation to due diligence requirements and handling pension scheme money and assets.

The FCA is proposing to introduce explicit due diligence requirements for SIPP operators; in particular, to protect consumers from fraud.

The FCA also proposes to introduce a Pension Scheme Money and Assets (PSM&A) regime to protect SIPPs not currently covered by the FCA's Client Assets Sourcebook rules. The FCA's intention is to set clear minimum standards so that there is consistent consumer protection across all SIPP firms. The proposed new Handbook requirements include ensuring that pension scheme money and assets are securely held, accurately recorded and subject to effective oversight. The "targeted and proportionate" proposals are intended to reduce the risk of consumer harm when firms fail or wind down.

The consultation will close on 24 August 2026.

Return to Contents.

The Pensions Dashboards Programme publishes the outcome of its consultation on changes to its reporting standards

On 19 June, the Pensions Dashboards Programme (PDP) published the outcome of its January 2026 consultation on changes to its reporting standards. In that consultation, summarised in our 6 February briefing, the PDP proposed routine daily reporting of data to the Money and Pensions Service (MaPS) via an application programming interface (API).

The PDP has confirmed that it will implement the proposals set out in its consultation; but, subject to government approval, will extend the implementation deadline to 1 March 2027 (instead of the original proposed deadline of 30 November 2026).

However, to ensure MaPS has visibility of key reporting data as early as possible, the PDP intends to require some manual reporting (that is, the submission of data via file upload) from Autumn 2026, for any directly connected organisations that have not yet been able to implement daily reporting. This manual reporting will be in addition to the existing requirement to provide coverage data on request. The PDP will confirm the precise requirements "in due course".

Return to Contents.

The Pensions Ombudsman determines that a trustee was not required to consult deferred members on a transfer from a defined contribution pension scheme to a master trust

The Pensions Ombudsman (TPO) has determined that the Trustee of a defined contribution (DC) pension scheme was not required to consult deferred members on a bulk transfer (without member consent) to an authorised Master Trust.

Specifically, Mr S complained that the Trustee did not consult deferred members before proceeding with the transfer, or allow a sufficient notice period. He also argued that, as a result of the transfer, and the default investment fund selected by the Trustee, he had suffered a financial loss of £718.11.

Broadly, the determination is reassuring for trustees in two respects:

• By confirming that there was no duty to consult deferred members on bulk transfers (for example, arising out of trustees' fiduciary duties); and
• By concluding that there was no maladministration when adhering to the one-month prior notice period for members. Mr S argued that the one-month period did not give him enough time to make arrangements for an alternative transfer, given that he did not want to join the master trust. TPO appeared to acknowledge this, but did not make a finding of maladministration.

Background

Mr S was a deferred member of a defined contribution pension scheme.

The transfer provisions in the scheme's definitive trust deed and rules explicitly allowed transfers without member consent in circumstances permitted under Regulation 12 of the Occupational Pension Schemes (Preservation of Benefit) Regulations 1991. These include a transfer of a member’s relevant money purchase rights to an authorised master trust.

Regulation 12(4B) also requires information about the proposed transfer (and details of the value of the rights to be transferred) to be provided to the member at least one month before the proposed transfer is due to take place.

On 6 May 2022, the Trustee wrote to Mr S informing him of the proposed transfer of his benefits from the scheme to an authorised master trust, which was due to take place the week commencing 20 June 2022. The letter specified that the deadline for new transfer requests was 22 May.

Mr S received the letter on 13 May. Mr S e-mailed the Trustee to complain that deferred members had not been consulted prior to receiving the letter. He explained that he had not been given sufficient time to make alternative arrangements for his pension and that he wished to remain in the scheme. He was also concerned that he may lose out financially as a result of not being able to switch out of the default investment fund during the blackout period (a temporary period during which members are prevented from making changes to their pension investments, to allow for the asset transfer).

His complaint was rejected under the scheme's internal dispute resolution procedure, so Mr S sought redress through TPO.

TPO's determination

TPO rejected Mr S's complaint, noting that the Trustee, when implementing the transfer, had complied with relevant pensions legislation and the terms of the scheme's trust deed and rules.

TPO noted that Mr S did not provide any evidence to support his claim that he had suffered financial loss in connection with the transfer. The basis on which Mr S claimed to have suffered financial loss was also unclear.

TPO rejected Mr S's argument that the failure to consult was a breach of the Trustee's duty to act in the best interests of scheme members. TPO also concluded that the Trustee had not voluntarily assumed a duty of care to consult, or notify deferred members more than one month in advance of the transfer.

Mr S’s main issue with the 6 May letter was the short-notice deadline stipulated for new member requests to transfer out of the scheme. TPO noted that the letter lacked detail about where members could obtain a transfer application form. TPO also noted that Mr S would likely have had "little time" in which to obtain and submit a completed application. Whilst acknowledging that the 6 May letter "could have had more detail", TPO also commented that this did not necessarily amount to maladministration. TPO concluded that the 6 May letter "made the position sufficiently clear and satisfied the legal requirements it was required to meet" and determined that there had been no breach of law or maladministration on the part of the Trustee.

Return to Contents.

Authored by Susanne Wilkins.