The Pensions Regulator

Code of practice 01
Reporting breaches of the law

.

.

.

Reporting arrangements

52. All reporters should have effective arrangements in place to identify breaches that occur in areas relating to their functions. These arrangements should enable them to evaluate and if appropriate report any breaches they become aware of in the course of their work.
53. If possible breaches are identified that do not relate to their functions, reporters should still follow the usual steps and consider reporting. If in doubt about whether a breach has in fact occurred, reporters should seek input from others having the necessary expertise.
54. All reporters should establish a procedure for evaluating matters to determine whether a breach has occurred and, if it has, whether it is likely to be of material significance to the Pensions Regulator. The nature of the arrangements is a matter for the reporter and should be conducive both to staff raising concerns and to the objective consideration of those concerns.

    View related guidance.

 

54. Collective reporting

55. The Pensions Regulator accepts that often trustees, together with one or more of their advisers or other groups, will wish to make a collective report.
56. If that is the approach taken, the procedure put in place must allow for the evaluation of each breach as described in this code of practice and for a report to be made as soon as reasonably practicable.

    Duplicate reporting

57. Where the trustee is not a corporate body, the duty to report falls on the individual trustees rather than on the board of trustees. If a consensus cannot be reached, or if there is insufficient time to agree a collective approach, the Pensions Regulator will expect the individuals to report. Duplicate reporting
58. The requirement to report applies to all those subject to the reporting duty who become aware of a breach that is likely to be of material significance to the Pensions Regulator; it is not automatically discharged by another party reporting the breach.
59. This gives rise to the possibility of duplicate reporting by those involved in a scheme. Duplicate reports carry a cost, which will ultimately be borne by the scheme members or the employer. Moreover, duplicate reports do not benefit the Pensions Regulator. Once aware of a particular breach, the Pensions Regulator does not regard that breach as being of material significance for the purpose of making further reports under the requirement to report breaches of the law. An exception is where another reporter has additional or different information about that breach or the circumstances relating to it.
60. The reporter coming across the breach should make the report to the Pensions Regulator. The regulator will send an acknowledgement to the reporter. The report (if not previously sent) and the acknowledgement should be sent by the reporter to the trustees or manager. The trustees or manager will be able to copy the original report and its acknowledgement to those other reporters who they consider may also be likely to come across the breach.
61. This arrangement is not intended to replace dialogue between trustees or managers and their advisers or service providers. When notified of a breach, trustees or managers may want to discuss matters with these groups. They will want to determine the best way to get things put right and may also want to discuss whether or not a report is needed. Indeed, trustees or managers should require their advisers to alert them when things appear to be going wrong and should ensure they are kept informed about matters affecting their scheme.
62. An exception to the arrangement above, and to the need for dialogue between trustees or managers and advisers or service providers, will apply in cases where there is a suspicion of dishonesty or other serious wrongdoing by the trustees or managers.

    Making a report

63. Reports must be submitted in writing. Reporters should wherever practicable use the standard format available on the website at online services.
64. The report should be dated and should include as a minimum:
    • name of the scheme;
    • description of the breach or breaches;
    • any relevant dates;
    • name of the employer (in the case of an occupational scheme) or scheme manager (in the case of a personal pension scheme, including stakeholder schemes);
    • name, position and contact details of the reporter; and
    • role of the reporter in relation to the scheme.

    The information that we would expect to see in addition is:

    • reason the breach is thought to be of material significance to the Pensions Regulator;
    • address of the scheme;
    • type of scheme - whether occupational (defined benefit, defined contribution or hybrid) or personal;
    • name and contact details of the trustees or scheme manager (if different to the scheme address);
    • pension schemes registry number; and
    • address of employer.

    Reports can be sent by post or electronically, including by email or by fax.¹¹

65. Urgent reports should be marked as such, and attention should be drawn to matters considered particularly serious by the reporter. A written report can be preceded by a telephone call if appropriate.
66. A reporter should ensure they receive an acknowledgement in respect of any report they send to the Pensions Regulator. Only when an acknowledgement of receipt is received by the reporter can they be confident that the Pensions Regulator has received their report.

    Follow up

67. The regulator will acknowledge all reports within five working days of receipt.
68. The Pensions Regulator will not generally keep a reporter informed of the steps it takes in response to a report of a breach. There are restrictions on the information it can disclose. Further information or reports of further breaches should, however, be provided by the reporter, if this may assist the Pensions Regulator in exercising its functions. The regulator may in any case make contact to request further information.

    View related guidance.

.

.

.