The PRG asked the Trustee to explain two recent administrative errors which have impacted different groups of RPF members and caused some concern. An exercise by the RPF administrator, Isio, to verify the accuracy of data held on ‘non-pensioner members’ — deferred pensioners and other future beneficiaries, such as widows — included an error related to benefits. This prompted the Trustee to publish a detailed explanation and apology, making clear that the error did not affect pension entitlement https://www.reuterspensionfund.co.uk/2025/08/01/data-verification-error/. Some recipients were confused by the terminology used in the data verification letters and subsequent correction i.e. “Benefits at date of leaving (per annum)” and “Value for Money (VFM) underpin” (please see the Isio article). To clarify, the figures are “at date of leaving” and NOT a members’ retirement quote. PRG has asked the Trustee to ensure that Isio communications to members are clearer in future. The second error concerned incorrect

There’s been a lot of discussion recently in the general and specialist pensions media about government plans to make it easier for Defined Benefit fund sponsors – the employers — to access what some in the pensions industry call “trapped surpluses,” which many DB schemes have built up in recent years. In their pursuit of growth, the government wants to encourage sponsor companies to invest their pension surpluses, or at least part of them, to boost the UK economy. This could involve fund sponsors investing surpluses in their own companies, with the inducement being a reduction in tax paid on these surpluses to 25 pct from 35 pct For all Defined Benefit fund members there is also an important potential gain because a surplus, or part of it, could be used to increase the pensions of both existing and future pensioners.  For example, it might be possible to use the RPF surplus to

PRG asked a Reuters Pension Fund member who has made use of the scheme’s internal dispute process how he found the experience. The main takeaways: the whole process is slow but works well. It is fact driven, not overly bureaucratic and serious consideration was given to the member’s complaint. Background to complaint In May 2022 this member submitted a request for a retirement quotation. The timing coincided with the handover of the administration of the pension scheme to Isio from Capita, which resulted in some disruption. It took until mid-December 2022 for the member to receive a valid quotation. The member was not happy with the delay, so made a complaint to Isio requesting specific action. Initial handling of complaint by Isio Member’s comment: Isio responded within a month, rejecting my request for specific action. They did provide a clear reason for the rejection, but it was based on an