How well are UK pension schemes managing their administrators?

Pension scheme administration has never been under greater scrutiny. With the Pensions Regulator updating guidance in December 2025, trustees remain legally responsible for the quality of their administration - even when services are outsourced to a third-party provider. Yet evidence suggests that oversight of those providers is inconsistent, and in many cases possibly insufficient.

Meanwhile, member expectations have shifted dramatically. In a digital-first world, scheme members expect the same speed, clarity and ease they experience with online retail or banking. When an administration service falls short, whether through poor communication, data errors, slow processing or complaint handling, it can impact members at one of the most emotionally and financially significant moments of their lives.

So, how are UK schemes managing their administrators?

We spoke to trustees on the boards of 119 UK pension schemes, pre-dominantly DB but also some DC to understand how they feel about their pension scheme administration.

What they said

• 38% are actively planning or considering undertaking, an administration benchmarking exercise (16%), administration service review (14%) or administrator replacement process (8%).
• Drivers of both the benchmarking and administration service review were evenly split between concerns with the current administration service delivery and regular benchmarking due as part of best practice governance.
• For those looking to replace their current administration provider 80% say it is due to poor service either in its entirety or more often in certain areas, such as project delivery.  The remaining 20% have had a significant change to the scheme that may benefit from a new admin provider, such as moving to buy-in or improved online member quotation automation.
• 62% of schemes surveyed have no plans to benchmark, review their existing administrator or move to a new administrator.

Of this group:

• 37% of schemes are focused on their endgame, either buy-out or consolidation
• 28% are confident they have good governance processes around administration oversight in place
• 9% have replaced their administrator recently to deal with issues that had arisen
• 8% have admin oversight low down the trustee board agenda or do not feel it is a good use of budget
• 18% did not share additional insights into why they had no planned administration projects

So, are schemes taking their administration seriously?

On the surface, the level of activity is encouraging: 38% of schemes surveyed are actively planning or seriously considering some form of administration review, benchmarking or provider replacement and a further group are confident in their governance processes.

However, the data reveals a more reactive approach – for many schemes, administration only rises up the agenda once issues, risks, or concerns emerge, which can be too late.  In practice, getting the administration service and its data in good order ahead of buy-out or consolidation can lead to great efficiencies and better outcomes for members.

To find out more about pensions administration reviews contact andy.peek@lawdeb.com