Agenda item

Presentation by West Yorkshire Pension Fund

(To receive a verbal presentation by West Yorkshire Pension Fund, the administrators for the Lincolnshire Pension Fund)


The Board received a verbal presentation from Stuart Duncombe, Team Manager for Business Relations, West Yorkshire Pension Fund, in connection with administration matters of the Lincolnshire Pension Fund which were due to be reported to the Pensions Committee on 6 October 2016.


Performance issues highlighted by Stuart Duncombe, comments made by the Board and the responses of officers, included:-


1. Refund Quotes at 43% was below the target of 85%. The reason for the failure to meet this target was due to work on the Valuation of the Fund and the Annual Statements and the need to prioritise other work matters.

2. Transfer Out quotes at 28% was below the target of 85% and the reasons for not reaching the target were similar to those in (a), above, and in addition the late delivery of Government factors to enable calculations to be done had contributed to the backlog..


Stuart Duncombe stated that there were 39 requests for Transfer Out quotes and some frustration had been shown by people trying to get a quote. The majority of requests had come from financial advisers and these were mainly of a speculative nature, 94% of divorce quotes were met, which showed where the main priority was. Important issues were able to be prioritised.


3. The performance target for dealing with death grants was important and had been met 100%.

4. 79% performance met for death in retirement and 97% performance met for retirement actuals.

5. Six new members of staff had been recruited to the Bradford office.

6. Officers stated that following a number of staff departures from the Lincoln based office concerns had been expressed about retention of staff in Lincoln. There were benefits of having a Lincoln office but current circumstances did not allow staff to be trained here.

7. Staff changes to the Communications Team.

8. Was it the intention to retain the overall performance measurement target of 85%? Officers stated that there was an expectation that the performance measurement of 85% would increase to over 90% as the transition issues had been dealt with and performance improved. However, it was currently not possible to meet the target of 85% with some employers already asking why this figure was not being met.

9. How did the 85% performance measurement compare with the benchmark? When the service was run by Mouchel the KPI targets were higher and CIPFA benchmark also used a higher performance measurement level than West Yorkshire. Officers suggested that this issue could be taken to the Collaboration Board to seek their view. The Board wished to see the CIPFA performance benchmark used in future.

10. The Board suggested that it might be in the interest of West Yorkshire to reduce some of the performance targets. Officers stated that the service had experienced a number of issues which had affected the performance measures including the problems with Serco and the transfer of data. The target of 85% was appropriate at the current time but when the service had had time to settle down it would be possible to increase the KPI targets.


The Board agreed that the performance targets should be taken to the Collaboration Board.


11. The customer survey measured satisfaction with the service at 80.34%.

12. 18,000 members had been issued with Life Certificates, 78% of the total. A Board Member stated that the use of Life Certificates was out dated and that it would be better to use Tracing firms. Officers stated that the issuing of Life Certificates was not expected to be an annual procedure and had proved beneficial on this occasion in view of the transition of systems and service providers.

13. What information were members being asked to declare on the Life Certificates as sometimes it was possible for signatures to change due to the aging process? Officers stated that in addition to being asked to sign a declaration form and provide next of kin details, other ways were being used to determine if a member was still alive.

14. If a Life Certificate was returned that was not satisfactory what course of action was taken next and would payment be suspended? Officers stated that they did not know the answer to this question adding that the Life Certificates were returned to the Call Centre in the first instance and payment only suspended as a last resort.

15. Officers stated that there were 12,000 members who had not made any declaration of who should receive their benefit in the event of their death, and these members were contacted to complete the declaration forms. Officers stated that it was the responsibility of the Pension Fund to make a decision in connection with those cases where there had been issues involving the settlement of the death grant.

16. The Employer's Administration Forum had taken place on 16 June and 45 employers had attended. The next Forum would be arranged for November 2016.

17. A scheme members' meeting had been arranged at the New Life Centre, Lincoln for 23 November 2016 with a 10.15am start and 1.00pm finish.

18. 92% of annual benefit statements had been issued by the end of August 2016.

19. Concerns about the provision of valuation data information to Hymans caused by software problems and the poor information submitted by employers in connection with member data. Officers stated that procedures had been put in place to avoid the same issues occurring in the future.

20. The Board stated that there was a need to remind employers to get employee information to West Yorkshire as soon as possible. Officers stated that several other areas had been identified for future action including on-going work with the software provider, further work on providing missing information, work with employers and on-going cleansing of records.

21. Officers stated that LCC was addressing late leavers' notifications from Serco.

22. The Board expressed concern about a National LGPS framework agreement for the provision of third party administration services issued by Norfolk County Council and the fact that West Yorkshire Pension Fund (WYPF) had put in a submission to be included in the framework. Officers stated that getting on the framework did not mean that WYPF would automatically get new business. All it meant was that other Pension Funds could ask WYPF to provide pensions administration which would benefit the existing partnership between WYPF and the Lincolnshire Pension Fund in the long run.

23. Had Serco's service improved? Officers stated that matters had improved.

24. Had there been any issues in connection with contributions? Officers stated that contributions were satisfactory.




That the verbal report, responses by officers to comments and the actions identified, be noted.



Original Text: