Welcome to your weekly update from the A&O Shearman Pensions team, covering all the latest legal and regulatory developments in the world of workplace pensions.
ECCTA: identity verification requirements from November 18, 2025
Companies House has confirmed that requirements for directors and people with significant control of companies (PSCs) to verify their identities under the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (ECCTA) will go live from November 18, 2025. From that date:
- any new director or PSC will need to verify their identity to incorporate a company or be appointed to an existing company
- existing directors will need to confirm that they have verified their identity when they return their next annual confirmation statement
- for existing PSCs, the deadline for identity verification will depend on whether they are both a director and a PSC of the same company or a PSC only
- directors and PSCs will see verification due dates for all their roles on the Companies House register.
Identity verification requirements for limited partnerships, corporate directors of companies, corporate members of limited liability partnerships (LLPs), and officers of corporate PSCs will commence later.
Companies House encourages individuals to verify their identities as early as possible.
Read the government's press release and updated guidance.
Tribunal upholds TPR contribution notice
The Upper Tribunal (UT) has upheld a contribution notice (CN) issued by the Pensions Regulator (TPR) concerning a family-run business group. Ms Pelgrave (the target of the CN) was one of two directors of DFL, which was the sole sponsoring employer of an occupational pension scheme. She was also an ultimate owner through a shareholding in DFHL, DFL's parent. The pension scheme was in deficit and DFL was paying minimal deficit repair contributions with a long recovery plan because of its weak financial position.
Money was extracted from the group in a number of ways and paid to Ms Pelgrave and members of her family. Of particular importance in the tribunal hearing was that DFL drew down GBP800,000 on a lending facility and c.GBP360,000 of this was used to effectively buy out Ms Pelgrave's shareholding in DFHL.
The UT rejected Ms Pelgrave's argument that she was not a "party" to the relevant acts/failures to act because she was not the key decision maker and was only a "paper director". It found that the requirement to be a "party" should be based on the ordinary meaning of the word; although Ms Pelgrave did not personally approve or effect the drawdown or deal with the internal cash movements, she knew where the finance for the transaction would come from and therefore was a party to those arrangements.
It also considered whether the "material detriment test" was met. It rejected an argument that there had been no material detriment because, on an accounting basis, DFL's increased indebtedness was balanced out by assets acquired. The question was what impact the arrangements had (or might have) on the likelihood of DFL being able to meet its obligations to the scheme. The reality was that this likelihood had been materially detrimentally affected.
Finally, the UT dealt with whether it was reasonable to impose a CN. The decision discusses the tensions between different factors and that a CN is not intended to be a penalty, to compensate schemes for loss or (at least primarily) to disgorge the target of a benefit they received, but is a means for TPR to support its regulatory objective. The tribunal found that it was reasonable to issue the CN and Ms Pelgrave "should not have allowed the employer company to weaken its resources in the way it did without making sure that the interests of all stakeholders in the company were protected. She did not ask any questions or take any advice with a view to even beginning to discharge that responsibility." Lack of engagement with what was happening was not a defence.
Read the case and TPR's press release.
PPF delays levy invoicing
The PPF has announced that it is delaying invoicing for its 2025/26 levy and will provide a further update in the autumn. The PPF previously amended its levy rules to allow a zero levy if appropriate legislative changes were brought forward and sufficiently progressed. Relevant changes were included in the Pension Schemes Bill and the PPF will monitor progress of that legislation before making a final decision on the levy, with the aim of maintaining the possibility of moving to a zero levy for conventional schemes for 2025/26.
ICO: new guidance on avoiding accidental disclosure of personal information
The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) has published new guidance on minimising the risk of accidental disclosure of personal information when disclosing documents to members of the public (which, in the pension scheme context, could include sending documents to scheme members or responding to a subject access request). The guidance focuses on steps to take to avoid accidentally sharing "hidden" personal information, for example, contained in metadata or mark-ups of documents. It sets out practical action points with checklists and supporting videos.
PASA guidance on protecting member data
The Pensions Administration Standards Association (PASA) has published new guidance aimed at supporting trustees in strengthening the security of member data. Key suggested actions include:
- implementing role-based data access controls, advanced encryption methods and login security
- conducting frequent security reviews to identify and address vulnerabilities (this may be incorporated into a scheme's effective system of governance and own risk assessment)
- considering and documenting the use of secure communication channels.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
