Pension administration teams work to provide members with a better service while keeping up with changing regulations and day-to-day demands. Investment in pension technology is growing, but ageing systems, staffing challenges, and inconsistent data quality can make that job harder.

So what do the figures tell us about the scale and cost of pension administration, and where automation is making a difference? We’ve brought together UK pension administration statistics from regulators, government, and industry bodies to take a closer look. We’ve included the reporting periods and made clear which schemes and parts of the UK each figure covers.

Pension administration statistics at a glance

• 32.8 million memberships were held in occupational defined contribution (DC) and hybrid schemes in 2025, excluding micro schemes with fewer than 12 memberships.
• The Pensions Regulator (TPR) recorded approximately 5,060 private-sector schemes in its 2025 defined benefit (DB) and hybrid pension scheme landscape report.
• The Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) spent £226 million on administration in England and Wales for 2024/25.
• 65% of surveyed administrators had increased technology or automation investment over the previous two years, according to TPR’s 2023/24 administrator survey.
• 87% of surveyed master trusts had increased administration technology or automation investment over the previous two years, according to TPR’s 2025 defined contribution research.
• More than 70 million workplace and private pension records were connected to the Pensions Dashboards infrastructure, according to the July 2026 progress report.

How many pension schemes and memberships need administering?

Good pension administration helps members understand what they have and access the support they need. Behind that service are teams managing the records, calculations, and day-to-day details that keep schemes running smoothly.

TPR’s 2025 landscape publications show just how many schemes and memberships depend on that work:

Scheme category	Number of schemes	Number of memberships
Private-sector defined benefit (DB) and hybrid schemes	Around 5,060	9.174 million
Public service defined benefit schemes and locally administered sections	Around 200	19.784 million
Occupational defined contribution (DC) and hybrid schemes (excluding micro schemes)	790	32.8 million

Sources: TPR’s 2025 DB landscape and DC landscape. The DC figures exclude schemes with fewer than 12 memberships. TPR treats locally administered public service sections as separate schemes for reporting purposes.

These figures count memberships, not individual people, as one person can belong to several pension schemes. Both publications also include hybrid schemes, so the rows should not be added together to avoid double counting.

Why are deferred memberships important?

Administration isn’t finished when someone leaves an employer or stops contributing. In the non-micro occupational DC and hybrid schemes covered in TPR’s report, 21.3 million memberships were deferred in 2025, or 65% of the total. Active memberships accounted for around 11.4 million.

Private-sector DB and hybrid schemes also had significant ongoing obligations. 47% of memberships were pensioner memberships, while 46% were deferred.

For administrators, this shows why active contributors aren’t the full story; records and benefits must remain manageable long after a member’s employment ends.

How much does pension administration cost?

One useful benchmark for understanding the cost of pension administration comes from the Local Government Pension Scheme in England and Wales. Its 2025 annual report recorded approximately £226 million in administration expenditure for 2024/25.

Financial year	Total administration expenditure	Administration cost per member
2022/23	£178 million	£27.41
2023/24	£195.7 million	£29.28
2024/25	£226.03 million	£33.18

Source: LGPS Scheme Annual Report 2025. Figures cover England and Wales and include all membership categories in the per-member calculation.

From the published figures, administration costs per member rose from £29.28 in 2023/24 to £33.18 in 2024/25, while total administration expenditure increased from £195.7 million to approximately £226 million. 

The Scheme Advisory Board links rising costs to pressures including McCloud remedy implementation, Pensions Dashboards Programme preparation, digital service expectations, cyber security, and recruitment and retention.

These are LGPS benchmarks, rather than average costs across UK pension schemes, so they should not be treated as an industry-wide administration rate.

Do larger pension schemes have lower costs?

Larger pension schemes can benefit from lower running costs per membership. TPR’s May 2026 analysis of 29 active master trusts found that total costs per membership generally fell as scheme size increased. Smaller schemes also showed greater variation in costs, with the smallest recording higher median costs.

These findings point to a practical benefit of scale: supporting more memberships does not necessarily mean costs have to rise at the same rate. Larger schemes may be able to negotiate lower service provider fees and operate more efficiently, creating opportunities to deliver better value for members.

The figures cover administration, investment, and operational costs rather than administration alone, so they are best viewed as an indication of the wider economies of scale available to larger schemes.

Are administration costs the same as pension scheme charges?

What members pay and what schemes spend on administration are different things. An annual management charge can cover both investment management and administration, so it does not tell us the cost of administration alone.

The Department for Work & Pensions’ Pension Provider Survey 2024/25 puts some figures behind those charges. For providers’ largest default funds, the median annual management charge was 0.24% for single-employer trusts and 0.32% for multi-employer providers, including master trusts and group personal pension providers.

The figures from this annual survey came from 30 single-employer trusts and 10 multi-employer providers. They offer a useful snapshot of reported charges, rather than a standard industry rate.

For trustees comparing costs, a useful starting point is to check what each figure includes. Keeping member charges separate from administration spending makes it easier to compare like for like and understand where the money goes.

How widely are pension schemes investing in automation?

Pension automation can take some of the manual work out of running a scheme. Here, we mean using pension software to handle administration tasks, rather than automatic enrolment into a workplace pension.

TPR’s 2025 research into DB and DC schemes shows that larger schemes were more likely to have increased their investment in administration technology or automation over the previous two years:

Scheme group	Schemes that increased investment in technology or automation (%)
DB schemes (overall)	36
Large DB schemes	64
Large DC schemes (excluding separate master trusts)	57
Master trusts	87

Sources: TPR’s 2025 DB and DC scheme surveys. “Large” means at least 1,000 members. The master trust figure is based on a subgroup of 15 schemes.

These figures measure increases in investment, rather than the proportion of administration tasks being automated. A scheme that maintained its budget may already have established systems, while increased spending may involve upgrading existing technology rather than introducing automation.

What benefits have administrators reported?

In TPR’s 2023/24 survey of 169 administrators, 65% had increased technology or automation investment over the previous two years. The 110 administrators who increased investment reported the following outcomes:

• 85% reported better service for members
• 67% experienced efficiency gains and cost savings
• 55% benefited from higher member engagement
• 42% had fewer errors or complaints

These were self-reported outcomes, not audited savings. In particular, 67% reporting efficiency gains and cost savings does not mean that costs fell by 67%.

For schemes assessing their own investment, useful measures could include calculation turnaround times, repeat enquiries, and cases requiring manual correction. Establishing a baseline makes it easier to judge whether a new system improves the work that matters.

What can make pension technology harder to implement?

Only 37% of administrators in the 2023/24 survey had a documented IT or technology strategy.

TPR’s September 2025 market oversight report provides more recent context. Following engagement with 15 administrators, it identified legacy systems as a continuing barrier to automation and scalability. Updating those systems could also require substantial time, money, and staff capacity.

The report described emerging uses of AI, including chatbots and predictive tools, but found that governance arrangements varied between administrators. Some had established structured oversight, while others lacked clear governance.

For schemes, the starting point should be the administration problem they want to solve, rather than the technology itself. For example, a scheme seeking faster retirement quotations should establish where delays occur, which data the calculation requires, and how exceptions will be handled. That creates a clearer basis for assessing a system rather than a general ambition to use the latest automation technology.

How much attention are schemes giving to data quality?

Technology is only as useful as the information provided. That means investment in software needs to go hand in hand with investment in data quality. TPR’s 2025 DB research found that 60% of schemes had increased spending on managing or improving data over the previous two years, rising to 83% of large schemes. In its separate DC research, 71% of large schemes had increased their data management or improvement budgets over the same period.

However, increased spending alone does not guarantee better data quality. TPR’s data quality initiative, running from October 2024 to September 2025, included 847 targeted letters asking schemes to take action and 211 requests for further information. These were targeted interventions, not a representative estimate of how many schemes across the industry had poor data.

The regulator found inconsistencies in testing and scoring. It emphasised that checking whether a field contains information is not enough: schemes also need to assess whether that information is accurate.

For example, a date of birth can be present but incorrect, and a record can look complete while still missing information needed for a particular benefit calculation. The more useful question is not whether data exists, but whether administrators can rely on it for the task at hand.

How far has the Pensions Dashboards Programme progressed?

Pensions Dashboards are intended to let people see pension information securely in one place. The July 2026 progress report recorded more than 70 million connected workplace and private pension records, representing approximately 85% of records in scope. This was alongside tens of millions of State Pension records. These are pension records, rather than unique individuals.

Is the connection deadline the same as the public launch?

The connection deadline and public launch are different. The connection deadline for schemes and providers in scope is 31 October 2026. The July 2026 report said that, on current plans, the MoneyHelper Pensions Dashboards was expected to become publicly available during the 2027/28 financial year.

Connecting pension records and launching a service to the public are different milestones. Schemes should not treat the connection deadline as confirmation of a public launch date.

What does this mean for administration teams?

TPR’s April 2026 Pensions Dashboards oversight report highlighted how concentrated the occupational pensions market is: 51 schemes held around 80% of occupational pension records in scope for Pensions Dashboards. Its engagement found that preparations for matching users to records were generally more mature than preparations for providing pension values.

This makes operational readiness just as important as technical connection. Pension administrators need to maintain reliable matching data and pension values after connecting. They should also prepare for increased member enquiries as dashboards encourage people to investigate pensions they may not have reviewed for years. 

TPR’s July 2026 guidance specifically encouraged schemes to consider workforce planning, training, and the support members may need.

How prepared are schemes for cyber incidents?

TPR’s 2025 DB survey found that 95% of schemes were covered by a cyber security incident response plan. However, only 31% said that plan had been tested within the previous 12 months.

This is important because a response plan must work in practice, not just exist on paper. For trustees and administrators, regular testing can help uncover weaknesses before an incident happens, from unclear responsibilities to gaps in service continuity and member communications.

It is also worth noting that the remaining schemes were not necessarily untested, as some respondents did not know when testing had last taken place.

Make pension administration work better for everyone

Good pension administration should work for the people running the scheme as well as the members relying on it. That means reducing unnecessary manual work, keeping information accurate and connected, and making it simpler for members to access the information they need.

Mantle brings all aspects of pension administration into one connected platform. Schemes can spend less time managing disconnected systems and more time delivering an effective service to members.

Want to see how Mantle could support your scheme? Start a conversation with our team.

---

Pensions software provider Mantle has reported strong member engagement with its award-winning My Pocket Pension app, following a recent phase-one pilot rollout by one of its clients.

The results arrive at a time when the pensions industry continues to grapple with one of its most persistent challenges: getting members to engage with their pension in the first place. For Defined Benefit (DB) scheme administrators, low engagement has long translated into higher volumes of routine queries, inaccurate member data, and increased pressure on already stretched teams. 

My Pocket Pension was designed to address this directly, and the pilot results suggest it is doing exactly that. The rollout, completed with around 300 members (full rollout will be to circa 28,000 members) found that 92% chose to use the mobile app over the web app, highlighting growing demand for simple, accessible digital pension tools. The finding is significant in itself: in an industry where even well-designed web portals struggle to attract regular member visits, the overwhelming preference for the mobile app points to something more fundamental than interface design. When members are genuinely inclined to engage, they will seek out the experience that works best for them, and, increasingly, that means mobile and apps.

Members have also responded positively to the app’s usability. 93% rated its overall usability as 4 or 5 out of 5, while 90% rated the registration process 4 or 5. A further 87% gave the same score for ease of checking benefits, with 75% rating ease of understanding benefits as 4 or 5. These figures are particularly notable given the accessibility and financial literacy barriers that have historically made pension communications and digital tools difficult for many members to navigate. 

The findings point to the potential of digital self-service to improve pension engagement while reducing pressure on administration teams. When asked how they planned to contact administrators in future, 53% of members said they would use the app, compared with 41% who said they would email. For administrators, this shift is meaningful; routine queries that would previously have required manual handling can instead be resolved independently by members through the app, freeing up time for more complex, value-added work. 

Mantle has also seen operational benefits where My Pocket Pension has been adopted more widely. In deployments where the app has achieved at least 30% member uptake, administration teams have seen a 30% reduction in workload – a significant efficiency gain for in-house schemes managing stretched capacity. 

The results come as Mantle prepares to roll out a major upgrade to My Pocket Pension, designed to make managing and understanding pensions simpler for both members and administrators.

The upgraded version, due to go live between May and early June, introduces a cleaner, more modern design, improved navigation, biometric login and enhanced mobile accessibility. The mobile app will meet AA accessibility standards, aligning it with the existing web app.

The platform has also been rebuilt behind the scenes to support future enhancements, creating a foundation for further improvements to the member and administrator experience.

---

Graeme Riddoch, Chief Revenue Officer at Mantle said: “We built My Pocket Pension with one goal in mind, to make pensions feel less complicated for the people who matter most: the members. Seeing those satisfaction scores come back, and knowing that administrators are genuinely feeling the benefit too, is incredibly rewarding. The upgrade we’re rolling out moves us on again, and reflects everything we’ve learned from working closely with our clients and their members. This is just the beginning of what we have planned.”

Graeme Riddoch

Chief Revenue Officer

The transition to the upgraded app will be seamless for existing users. Members will continue to access My Pocket Pension in the same way, with no disruption and no need to re-register. Mobile app users will receive the update automatically where automatic updates are enabled, while web users can continue using their usual link.

Mantle’s My Pocket Pension app is designed to help pension scheme members access key information, check benefits, update personal details, and engage with their pension more easily through mobile and web applications.

Ends

Media Enquiries: For media enquiries and further information, please contact Susan O’Neill at Susan_Oneill@mantleservices.com or on 02895 210 225

About Mantle Services

Mantle is a cloud-hosted pensions platform that unifies administration, payroll, treasury, accounts, and actuarial services in one system. Mantle licences its software to in-house pension schemes, third party administrators, actuarial firms and buy-out providers. Used by thousands of schemes and administrators, it automates 100% of benefit calculations, improving accuracy and efficiency. With over 1.7 million member records hosted and £1 billion in payments processed annually, Mantle delivers real-time insight, secure digital access for members, and a streamlined experience for pension providers.

---

With communication forming such a key part of pension management, let’s fully explore what it entails, what makes for good comms, and how the right tools and approach can make it sustainable.

---

What is pension member communication?

Pension member communication covers everything a scheme does to keep its members informed, supported, and connected to their pension. It is the line of communication between trustees and pension administrators running the scheme and the members at the heart of it. Good member communications keep people informed and help them to understand their options and the rules governing their pension. Effective communication is essential to help members navigate their pension options.

With the right approach, members can feel like they understand what they have and how their pensions can support their retirement plans. They will be able to make better decisions, with confidence and without feeling overwhelmed.

What does good member communication actually involve?

When firms engage members via communications, a basic standard must be met. These are important conversations, and so they need to be made as accessible as possible for everyone. Due to this, it is wise to consider the following when constructing membership communications:

Write in plain English

By their very nature, DB pension communications can be rather complicated and difficult to interpret. Members may not have a good technical grasp of what they are entitled to in their scheme, and they won’t keep reading past the first paragraph if they don’t immediately understand it.

The challenge for administrators is translating it into language that members with no pensions background can act on, providing clear communications that minimise jargon and speak in plain English. While in-house conversations can remain on a high, technical level, they must be simplified when speaking to customers.

Communicate timely

Members will appreciate timely communications. Pensions often require their members to make informed decisions. For DB scheme members approaching retirement in particular, timely communication can make a meaningful difference – ensuring they understand their options with enough time to consider them properly, rather than feeling rushed into decisions that will affect the rest of their retirement.

Signposting the right tools at the right moment matters too. Calculators, dashboards, and self-service resources are only useful if members know they exist and are prompted to use them when they’re most relevant.

Tailor communications

All communications need to be tailored to their audience. A DB scheme can have an enormously varied membership – deferred members with decades until retirement, active members approaching it, and pensioners already drawing their benefits. The right message for one group might be completely inadequate for another.

For example, members who are still in work will require different communications to those who have retired and are drawing on their pension. By tailoring messaging to the right audiences to reflect where they are on their journey, makes it far more likely that those communications will actually land and those audiences will feel confident and well-supported in return.

Collect feedback

Pension schemes cannot just send out communications with no idea as to how effective they are. Delivery metrics such as open rates and click-throughs can tell pension administrators how their communications are being received and interacted with. They don’t tell you whether it was understood.

Collecting regular feedback such as direct feedback or surveys on what members think of the communication is key. This will also help to provide evidence of customer care as part of regulatory or compliance scrutiny. The goal should always be to improve upon the level of communications currently delivered.

What should be communicated?

Member communications can be incredibly varied, as there is a wide variety of information that needs to be conveyed. Some of the most common communications will include:

• Annual pension statements
• Responses or clarifications to questions and requests
• Updates about changes to the scheme and how it may affect them
• Information about how to access funds in retirement as that milestone draws near

By communicating regularly and with clarity, schemes can ensure that members have all the information they need to effectively manage their pensions.

Defined Benefit (DB) vs Defined Contribution (DC) pension communications – why the difference matters

A great example of why communications need to be varied comes in the differences between defined benefit (DB) and defined contribution (DC) pensions. Since these pensions are structured differently, their respective members need to be informed of differing information and options.

Communication for DB pensions will focus more on clarity and reassurance. The scheme promises a defined outcome, so less decision-making is required. Members will not need a deep financial understanding, as risk mostly sits with the employer and scheme. Good communications will focus on making the scheme rules easy to understand for all, when members can access their funds, and what options are available to them at retirement.

Conversely, communication for DC pensions will be more guidance-led. Outcomes here are much more uncertain, so communications need to help individuals understand their options, simplify complexity, and encourage action. Comms may need to explain more technical topics, such as investment or longevity risk or the impact of inflation, and so need to be comfortable simplifying these topics without losing any of their significance.

What do effective member communications look like?

Regardless of their target audience, most member communications should follow the same principles. Communication is not just a single action but an entire strategy within a scheme, and effectiveness may be carried by:

Purpose

No message should be arriving in a member’s inbox simply because they haven’t had one in a while. Ideally, admins should be following a tailored communication strategy, whether they send a planned message or need an ad-hoc one to explain something new.

Length

Sending too long a communication risks disengaging your members. More often than not, they will not want to sit through a long newsletter or update video. Initial contact should be short and snappy. If you do need to pass on details or significant information, attach it to the communication, direct members to supplementary resources on their portal or website, or ask them to reach out directly.

Channels

Consider the channels available to you. Are you leveraging them correctly to ensure that messages are heading to every member? Modern pension schemes may use email, text, social media, or even pension app push notifications to pass on communications. Offering a wide variety of options to members allows them to control their incoming messages in a way that best suits them.

Clarity

As pensions get more and more complex, members equally need to be able to maintain a good working knowledge of how their money is being invested and what they can claim at each stage. This requires input and support from pension providers, and this task of clarification often falls to admins. Too many schemes still measure success by delivery, not understanding. Sending a compliant communication is not the same as ensuring it’s understood.

Proactive

Pension communications should ideally be proactive, not reactive. As members gain access to their pension dashboards and further understanding of how their money is working, meet them halfway with resources to answer their questions as they have them. A reactive approach may be needed in an emergency, but a proactive one can cover most enquiries the average member may have.

How technology supports better member communication

For administrators working on large or complex DB schemes, delivering consistent, high-quality member communications manually is increasingly difficult to sustain. The volume of members, the variety of communication types, and the need to tailor messaging to different audiences all create pressure that good intentions alone can’t solve.

Technology plays a significant role in making this manageable. Pension admins need to have the right tools on their side when it comes to delivering effective communications. As pensions grow more and more complex, manual work is becoming inefficient and time-consuming. Leveraging the right platforms and technology helps to ensure that communications can remain at a high standard while simultaneously relieving some of the burden placed on administrators, allowing them to focus their time and energy on more important tasks.

Mantle transforms pension management by bringing all aspects together into one unified platform—including member engagement and communications. Teams can construct and perfect their communication strategy within the platform and then send it directly to the customer via their preferred method, whether this is in the app, via text, or through an email newsletter.

Start a conversation with us today to find out more about how Mantle can support both your approach to member communication and your wider pension management strategy.

---

Utmost Life and Pensions Completes First External Pension Scheme Buyout, Powered by Mantle

[Belfast, 17^th April 2026] — Mantle Services (“Mantle”), the global pensions software provider and part of the 3173 Group of companies, today congratulates client Utmost Life and Pensions (“Utmost”) on a landmark moment in its bulk purchase annuity (BPA) journey – the successful completion of its first external pension scheme buyout.

The transaction involved the Noble Foods Limited Pension Scheme, with whom Utmost completed a full scheme buy-in in April 2025. In the months that followed, Utmost worked swiftly to issue 455 individual buyout policies to scheme members and dependants – achieving full buyout in under a year. This rapid progression from buy-in to buyout underlines the operational capability and efficiency that Utmost has developed since entering the BPA market.

Mantle was appointed by Utmost in Q3 2024 following a competitive procurement process, selected for the flexibility and advanced functionality of its pensions software platform. Mantle’s technology supports Utmost across the full risk transfer lifecycle – including actuarial valuations, benefits calculations, quotations, and administration through to the issue of individual member policies – all delivered within a single integrated platform. The result is a faster, more efficient journey for both trustees and scheme members.

Chris Tucker, Chief Client Success Officer at Mantle Services, said: “Completing a buyout of this scale in under a year is a real demonstration of what’s possible when the right technology underpins the process. We built our Mantle platform to remove the friction from risk transfer administration, and this transaction is proof of that in action. We’re delighted for the Utmost team and look forward to supporting them as their BPA business continues to grow.”

Gary Needham, Head of BPA Business Development, Utmost Life and Pensions, said: “This is an important milestone for Utmost which was been underpinned by our partnership with Mantle and their innovative platform, [Mantle Administrator].  I’d like to thank the Mantle team for the support, dedication and hard work which has helped us deliver a smooth transition and, importantly, a good experience for the Trustees and their scheme members.”

Ends

Media Enquiries: For media enquiries and further information, please contact Susan O’Neill at Susan_Oneill@mantleservices.com or on 02895 210 225

About Mantle Services

Mantle is a cloud-hosted pensions platform that unifies administration, payroll, treasury, accounts, and actuarial services in one system. Mantle licences its software to in-house pension schemes, third party administrators, actuarial firms and buy-out providers. Used by thousands of schemes and administrators, it automates 100% of benefit calculations, improving accuracy and efficiency. With over 1.7 million member records hosted and £1 billion in payments processed annually, Mantle delivers real-time insight, secure digital access for members, and a streamlined experience for pension providers.

About Utmost Life and Pensions

Utmost Life and Pensions operates both a closed UK life and pensions business and a bulk purchase annuity business. Utmost Life and Pensions manages £5.6bn of primarily unit-linked policyholder assets on behalf of over 290,000 policyholders. Utmost Life and Pensions is authorised by the PRA and regulated by the FCA and the PRA.

---

---

The role of a Pension Scheme Administrator

Pension scheme administrators play a key role in overseeing schemes so they run smoothly and efficiently while maintaining compliance at all times. They are often responsible for ensuring that member trust remains intact, all while supporting operational resilience and compliance.

Both scheme members and the administrators themselves need to have a clear understanding of the full scope of the role. Let’s fully explore what this role entails in pension scheme administration and how it is best supported as it evolves in our modern world.

---

What is a Pension Scheme Administrator?

A pension scheme administrator is the person responsible for the day-to-day running of the scheme, maintaining the operational engine that keeps it efficient and operating within regulatory guidelines. They are the “face” of the scheme and the main touchpoint for members.

This is a key role handling much of the practical work required to help keep a pension scheme running well. Even with the best practices and structure in place, a scheme can quickly run into issues such as data inaccuracies and compliance failures if poor administration is allowed to take root.

Who Can Be a Scheme Administrator?

Not everyone is qualified to be a scheme administrator. In the UK, this is a specific legal term under HMRC rules and can be:

• An individual, such as a trustee or a senior responsible person
• A corporate entity, such as a pension provider or administration firm
• Multiple administrators, in specific instances where responsibility can be shared.

Any administrator must be deemed a “fit and proper person” by HMRC, indicating that they are suitable and have the skills needed to take on the responsibilities of pension administration, particularly around handling tax matters.

Administrators vs Trustees

To fully understand the role of administrator, we must distinguish it from the role of trustee, one of the other key roles we typically see in the pension sphere.

As mentioned above, administrators are the ones carrying out the day-to-day operations of the scheme. They can either be in-house, or they may also be third-party administrators (TPAs). If they are the latter, they are often specialist providers who manage schemes on behalf of multiple clients.

Trustees are responsible for overseeing the scheme and acting in the best interest of the members. They will set the strategy, ensure that everything the administrators do falls within compliance guidelines, and will ultimately be the ones accountable for the actions administrators take.

Core Responsibilities of a Pension Scheme Administrator

A scheme administrator’s responsibilities are vital to keeping procedures moving forward as they should. Some of these core assignments include:

Member Record Management

Administrators are responsible for ensuring that all member records are accurate, up-to-date, and meticulously maintained. They will be the ones processing those joining and leaving the scheme and retirees who wish to withdraw their pensions. Maintaining this data integrity will form the foundation of all other tasks.

Contributions and Payments

Administrators will also be responsible for monitoring both employer and employee contributions to ensure these are handled correctly. They will need to allocate funds correctly while managing any late or missing payments and operating tax relief where required.

Benefit Calculations and Processing

Should retirees wish to withdraw their pensions, the scheme administrator’s duties will include ensuring this is done in an accurate and timely manner. They will be the ones responsible for calculating pensions and lump sums, retirement and death payments, plus any transfers that arise as a result of either of these.

Member Communications

Someone needs to be responsible for communicating with scheme members so they understand how their money is being handled. This could take the form of issuing annual benefit statements or answering queries as they are submitted. In doing so, they support transparency and engagement and build trust between the pension provider and its customers.

Compliance and Regulatory Reporting

UK pension regulations are handled by The Pensions Regulator (TPR). Though the trustees are ultimately the ones responsible for supporting scheme compliance, the administrator is often the one who prepares reports for both TPR and HMRC. They will also be responsible for reporting events relating to the scheme to relevant bodies if needed and will also need to manage audit requirements.

Key Challenges Faced by Pension Administrators

As schemes become increasingly more complex and regulatory requirements grow in response, more and more challenges also arise for pension administrators. In order to continue to deliver a good service, trustees and administrators need to know how to navigate these challenges while preparing for further ones arising in the future.

This is especially true in terms of changing regulations. Though regulatory change is well signposted and communicated, schemes need to be compliant with changes by their respective deadlines. It can require some careful internal coordination to ensure that no details are left behind.

Pensions Dashboards, when live, may increase the volume of queries that administrators need to handle.

Even the best registered pension scheme can also struggle due to manual processes and workflow inefficiencies. In particular around the calculation of pension benefits. Data silos and poor integration add even more difficulties. Good organisation and standards are a must to ensure that no information slips between the cracks, and that there is always a clear paper trail for compliance purposes.

The Role of Technology in Modern Pension Administration Services

In the changing modern world of pensions, technology plays a key role in ensuring administrators can keep up with the demands expected of them. The right software will be the partner and foundation they need, no matter the changes or challenges that may come their way.

Embracing software and pension tools is critical for reducing manual workload in a world where processes are becoming more and more complicated. Automation helps with data accuracy and maintaining accurate records, in turn helping with compliance and regulatory demand.

A strong pension administration platform should also offer a good member experience from all sides of the pension journey. Administrators need a straightforward portal they can access and quickly find information in, allowing them to run calculations, pull reports, complete requests, and undertake any other tasks that may be asked of them. Meanwhile, scheme members also need a user-friendly interface they can navigate to answer any questions they may have about their pensions, whether they are seeking out information on a FAQ on the portal or getting in touch with an administrator for a more specific problem.

The right software should:

• Reduce the risk of errors
• Improve service delivery while supporting long-term scheme sustainability
• Enable administrators to deliver a high level of service without excessive effort or distraction, allowing them to focus on higher-value work

Enable Better Pension Outcomes with Mantle

As important as the role of pension administrator is, it must be supported by the right tools. Pensions form a vital part of a worker’s future, so we all want to know that they are in the best possible care. Since administrators are the ones responsible for the everyday running of the scheme, their role is just as vital as that of the trustees in making investment decisions.

For this reason, it is vital that they are given the right platform to manage their tasks from, enabling them to deliver better care to their customers and ensure all compliance needs are met accurately.

Mantle simplifies complex pension management, delivering a unified, cloud-based pension software platform designed to support your scheme’s administrators and other key staff in their tasks. Give your administrators the support they need, break down silos, and build efficiency across your pension teams. Start a conversation with us today and find out how Mantle can transform your approach to delivering value to your scheme members.

---

New data obtained via a Freedom of Information request shows complaints submitted to the Pensions Ombudsman have jumped from 6,558 in 2023 to 8,709 in 2024 – a 33% year-on-year increase. The growing number of complaints underscores an industry struggling to meet growing member demands.

---

While complaints explicitly tied to administration issues declined slightly (701 to 660), the sustained volume points to persistent underlying inefficiencies within schemes’ operational systems.

In response, Mantle the global pensions software provider, is urging schemes, third-party administrators and insurers to urgently modernise their admin infrastructure.

The firm has dubbed this systemic challenge the “Admin Avalanche,” citing a systemic backlog of member servicing issues stemming from outdated technology and a shrinking talent pool of pension administrators creating critical bottlenecks to member service quality.

Risks for administration providers

As Ombudsman complaints increase, Mantle warns that overall service demand is rising – and manual operations can’t scale.

Going beyond the generalities of poor service as a result of inefficient systems, there are some rapidly emerging pinch points.

Take McCloud in the Public Sector

Systems providers have been playing catch up to deliver the required calculations resulting in delays to retirement estimates, payment of benefits and Transfer Value calculations. An inability to calculate TV’s is hitting some members in particular with reports of legal action against Schemes as members can’t divorce with a Transfer Value calculation.

Dashboards requirements are also exposing some platforms where manual calculation of Estimated Retirement Incomes is happening. Upgrading the underlying administration to a modern capable solution solves McCloud, Dashboards and a host of other problems.

James Whittingham, Managing Director of Mantle said:

“The combination of ageing populations, complex benefits structures, and analogue systems is creating a perfect storm. This data reinforces what we hear every day from clients: the volume and complexity of member requests is climbing, while the ability to respond in a timely, accurate manner is becoming harder. Real-time, automated admin infrastructure is no longer a luxury – it’s a necessity. Schemes pursuing consolidation or buyout need to show they can deliver seamless, high-quality member servicing.

Mantle’s cloud-based platform supports over 1,200 pension schemes and more than 1.76 million member records. It processes upwards of 20,000 valuation runs and approximately £1 billion in member payments annually, helping reduce errors, speed up service delivery and free up administrator time for high-impact tasks.”

James Whittingham

Managing Director, Mantle.

Ends

Research is based on a Freedom of Information request send to the Pensions Ombudsman submitted in May 2025.

For further information please contact:

Ged Brumby, Edelman Smithfield at ged.brumby@edelmansmithfield.com or on 07540 412301

Susan O’Neill at Susan_Oneill@mantleservices.com or on 02895 210 225

---

When pension reform backfires, everyone pays the price. The McCloud remedy, initially designed to reduce public sector pension costs, has instead created an administrative nightmare that’s driving up expenses and leaving members frustrated. What started as a well-intentioned cost-saving measure has morphed into a perfect storm of technical limitations, staffing challenges, and member confusion. Traditional pension management platforms simply weren’t built to handle these dual calculations, creating a cascade of costly problems. Mantle’s Graeme Riddoch discusses the true impact of McCloud on pension schemes and those who depend on them.

---

What is the McCloud Remedy?

What most people know about the McCloud remedy is that it’s a Public Sector Defined Benefits (DB) Pensions issue that impacts some members. At its heart were reforms designed to curb the cost of Public Sector Pensions by changing accrual to Career Average.  This generally produces lower benefits than Final Salary, thus saving money.

Ultimately, a judge found the changes to be discriminatory and the upshot in simple terms is that both career average and final salary calculations need to be run. LGPS members are presented with “the better of” for their circumstances. Local Government members get both calculations and choose.

So what started out as an exercise designed to reduce costs has had the opposite effect.

What is the impact of the McCloud remedy?

One of the biggest problems is having to run both career average and final salary calculations. The platforms running the schemes were set up for final salary calculations, not career average. Some legacy platforms struggle to fully automate one set of calculations never mind both!

A huge amount of money is therefore being burnt just in this area. We recently came across one large scheme having to run career average calculations on spreadsheets and then manually merge the results with the Final Salary calculations. The net effect was to pretty much double the number of staff required to support the scheme, with the accompanying cost.

Consider serving data to Pensions Dashboards, some platforms struggle with one ERI calculation, never mind two.

The other real-world impact of McCloud is on members. If you can’t automate calculations then getting estimates of benefits is a long painful process. Also, forget member self-serve.

Communication is a real issue, just go on the LGPS website and look at how much copy is dedicated to trying to explain things to members. DB pensions are complicated enough to start with!

There are even more fundamental consequences. The BBC ran a story recently about people unable to get a divorce. The barrier being an inability of the actuary to value the benefits to allow for a pension sharing order.

The problems of a large LGPS fund in the Midlands are well documented with Martin Lewis wading in. The fund in question was struggling so badly that some members hadn’t received their pension 5 months after retirement.

So what’s the remedy? Well, the technology underpinning many schemes isn’t up to the job. To be fair the platforms were never designed to run parallel calculations. Few are capable of calculating Transfer Values, on one basis, never mind two.

Better is possible however. Mantle’s pension management platform runs both career average and final salary in real time. It also supports dual opposite sex records for GMP as well as live transfer values, refreshed daily.

And the cost? Well for one scheme we estimated a 50% reduction in staff costs and a transformation in terms of the service to the member. That’s the real cost of McCloud!

How Mantle’s Pension Management Platform can help.

By upgrading to modern pension management technology platforms designed to handle dual calculations effortlessly, schemes can dramatically reduce operational costs while delivering superior service to members.

Explore how Mantle’s real-time calculation capabilities can transform your scheme administration, cut costs by up to 50%, and give your members the responsive service they deserve. Contact us today at enquiries@mantleservices.com to learn how we can help you navigate the McCloud challenge more efficiently.

---

In the ever-evolving world of pension management, staying ahead of the curve is crucial. Yet, many pension schemes find themselves stuck with outdated platforms, reluctant to make the leap to more modern solutions.

• Not uncomfortable enough to move 
• Lack of awareness of better solutions 
• Perceived high cost of transition 
• Concerns about impact on the admin team

---

The comfort zone

On the first point it’s clear that many schemes can be far from satisfied with their current provider but not so dissatisfied that they are actively seeking to move. Often a platform going out of support can be the trigger.

Believe in better

From first-hand experience of talking to pensions managers there’s a low expectation of what can be achieved by moving platform and the problems that can be solved. When they realise that better is possible, they get very interested.

Too expensive

The biggest barrier however can be the anticipated cost to move.

spoke to one pensions manager running a scheme with around 20,000 members. When they moved to their current platform some 10 years ago the cost was in the region of £1M! However, it’s important to consider that technology has evolved, and modern solutions often offer more cost-effective transition processes.

Internal cost to change

It’s not just the transition costs but the impact on staff and resourcing the transition internally. One scheme we spoke to found, the move to their current platform very hard as a lot of the sign off on calculation testing fell on the admin team, who were flat out running the scheme on a day-to-day basis. They vowed never to move again! However, modern platforms have streamlined these processes, significantly reducing the burden on internal teams. 

A modern solution

Mantle relative to many legacy platforms can transform the experience for administrator and member alike. Mantle offers: 

• 100% calculation automation
• Integrated payroll, treasury and accounts  
• Integrated actuarial for live valuations
• Member self-serve in the bundle
• Pensions Dashboards ready 

This creates efficiency, saves money and delivers a better experience for administrators and ultimately the member. 

The cost effective transition


We know from clients that our transition costs are a fraction of others. There’s a number of reasons for this. 

A highly configurable solution. No development required or black box coding of calculations for even the most complex benefit structures. 

 No rocket scientists required. Skilled administrators can set up Mantle reducing setup costs. 

Making it easy

Moving platform is undoubtedly a significant undertaking for any scheme, even if the benefits are clear. 
Calculation testing can have a big dependency on the in house team.

Wind forward to a modern system with a different approach to onboarding and the cost to transition is a fraction of what was paid previously and the call on the admin team minimised.  

Embracing the future of re-platforming

Don’t let the fear of change hold your scheme back. Explore the possibilities of modern pension management software and take the first step towards a more efficient, cost-effective, and member-focused future. Your administrators—and more importantly, your members—will thank you for it.

For further information on re-platforming and what Mantle can offer,
visit our website www.mantleservices.com or contact us at enquiries@mantleservices.com  

---