Giant Nest Pension Contributions

[condon]

Hi all,

After noticing the pension contributions on my payslip (PAYE, weekly) to be ridiculously small I started to investigate how the contribution figure for myself and for Giant was arrived at. Giant took about 3 weeks to give me an obscure answer, but one that was sufficient enough for me to work out what was going on, along with a lot of online research.

It appears the reason the contribution for both my part and their part is so small is because they don't take my full pay into account, rather have some sort of arbitrary "basic pay" level set, which is just over half of my actual pay. The contributions are then a percentage of that minus NI contributions. I've tried to find information on whether that practice is legal, and how far they can push it, but I'm not sure of what it is I'm searching for.

Reading up on the Nest pension, the government want to ramp up contributions for both employee and employer over the next couple of years. However, if the employer can set an arbitrary pay rate at which to make the contributions on, it makes a mockery of the government's intentions.

Can anyone shed any light on this practice or have any related information?

I also asked Giant how I could increase my contribution, they said I couldn't unless I cancelled the Nest pension and started with someone else. Is that true, or are they misleading for their own benefit?

Many thanks for any intelligence you can offer on this subject.

C

[lucyclarityumbrella]

Hi all,

After noticing the pension contributions on my payslip (PAYE, weekly) to be ridiculously small I started to investigate how the contribution figure for myself and for Giant was arrived at. Giant took about 3 weeks to give me an obscure answer, but one that was sufficient enough for me to work out what was going on, along with a lot of online research.

It appears the reason the contribution for both my part and their part is so small is because they don't take my full pay into account, rather have some sort of arbitrary "basic pay" level set, which is just over half of my actual pay. The contributions are then a percentage of that minus NI contributions. I've tried to find information on whether that practice is legal, and how far they can push it, but I'm not sure of what it is I'm searching for.

Reading up on the Nest pension, the government want to ramp up contributions for both employee and employer over the next couple of years. However, if the employer can set an arbitrary pay rate at which to make the contributions on, it makes a mockery of the government's intentions.

Can anyone shed any light on this practice or have any related information?

I also asked Giant how I could increase my contribution, they said I couldn't unless I cancelled the Nest pension and started with someone else. Is that true, or are they misleading for their own benefit?

Many thanks for any intelligence you can offer on this subject.

C

Hi Condon

You appear to have been auto-enrolled into the scheme, which is normally done at the basic rate on the contract which is more than likely to be National Living Wage. This would be standard for most umbrella companies, especially if the employee wishes to opt out, as this money would be taken and would then have to be refunded.

As for the increased contribution, this would be dependent on the umbrella company. With CU an employee can make the contribution they wish into our pension scheme as long as we NET national minimum wage in their pay packet and they do not put away more than £40k for the year.

HTH

[saptastic]

Not sure if it is related to qualified earnings ?

https://www.nestpensions.org.uk/sche...-earnings.html
i.e. there is an upper limit on your 'salary' that qualifies for a pension.

As far as I know you can top up your Nest account with additional contributions.....

[psychocandy]

OP- Yep a lot of umbrellas will pay the absolute minimum as required by law i.e. totally pointless and arent interested in doing anythung else.

[saptastic]

OP- Yep a lot of umbrellas will pay the absolute minimum as required by law i.e. totally pointless and arent interested in doing anythung else.

Why would they pay higher than the minimum?
Its not like a traditional employer trying to keep staff happy and loyal.

Also Most umbrella workers will only want to contribute the minimum.

They can top up directly themselves.

[moggy]

Why would they pay higher than the minimum?
Its not like a traditional employer trying to keep staff happy and loyal.

Also Most umbrella workers will only want to contribute the minimum.

They can top up directly themselves.

If its an "employer" contribution from the rate billed - then they save the employers NI. Id say that is the best benefit, now they can't really claim expenses.

[condon]

Thanks all, this has been really helpful, now I completely understand. Shame Giant couldn't come straight out with it themselves.