9 December 2025
Trafalgar House, a specialist third-party pensions administrator, today have provided their response to the TPRs revised administration guidance.
Daniel Taylor, Client Director at Trafalgar House, commented: “TPR’s new guidance is a positive step, and I’m pleased to see administration finally treated as the strategic function it has always been. Trustees now have a much clearer picture of what good looks like, and administrators have fewer places to hide behind vague expectations. That’s all welcome, however, we’ve reached the point where guidance alone won’t shift the dial fast enough. High-quality administration underpins every saver outcome. Yet the standards across the market are still wildly uneven, and the schemes most in need of improvement are often the least likely to act on voluntary frameworks. When you see the scale of issues that still surface day to day, you start to question whether optional compliance is really enough to protect members.
“TPR has set out a clear blueprint. The next step is making sure everyone actually follows it. Mandatory data strategies, mandatory accreditation, mandatory evidence that systems and processes are fit for purpose. These aren’t burdens, they are the minimum safeguards members should expect. Plenty of administrators, including us, already operate to this level because it is simply the right standard for modern pensions administration operations. Others should not get to opt out.
Taylor added: “TPR has given the industry a clear framework, and PASA has already done much of the heavy lifting in turning that into practical standards on data, transfers and accreditation that schemes can use straight away. The problem is not a lack of guidance, it is the optional nature of it. If we genuinely believe administration is fundamental to saver outcomes, then using tools like PASA’s data guidance, transfer code and accreditation should move from “nice to have” to “must have”. Stronger rules, underpinned by these existing standards, would protect members and better reflect the seriousness of running pension schemes.”
(ENDS)
