Consultation response: our new approach to enforcement
This is our final response to the consultation on our new enforcement approach. It summarises the feedback we received, how we have considered that feedback, and the next steps for implementation.
Published: 8 September 2026
Introduction
The consultation ran from 16 September 2025 to 11 November 2025 and invited views on our proposed approach to enforcement. The approach aims to protect members from harm, raise compliance and standards to enhance the pensions landscape, and support a pensions system that works in the best interests of members. We received 26 responses submitted from across the industry, including trustees, employers, advisers, public service scheme stakeholders and representative bodies. We also considered partially complete responses. We are grateful to everyone who took the time to share their views. Your feedback is shaping how we implement this approach.
Why we’re evolving our approach
Our new enforcement approach reflects an important shift in how we regulate. It introduces a more focused, agile and outcomes-driven model, aligned with our statutory objectives, our corporate priorities and our shift towards a more prudential style of regulation. It marks a deliberate move towards smarter, collaborative and risk-based interventions that deliver real-world results.
Our wider transformation reorients our approach towards risk-based regulation and our new enforcement approach is a key step in implementing that vision. It reflects our commitment to evolving our approach so we can act earlier, respond more effectively to serious risks and deliver better outcomes for members, driving forward our vision that everyone has a sustainable income in retirement.
Considering your feedback, we also want to clarify the main drivers behind this change.
A changing pensions landscape
The pensions ecosystem is evolving rapidly and what worked in the past will not be enough to meet future challenges. The Pension Schemes Bill (the Bill) aims to reshape the regulatory environment and introduce new requirements for schemes and employers. While the Bill is still progressing through Parliament, it highlights areas where we need to do things differently to remain effective in a changing industry.
Our wider transformation
We have reorganised our teams to ensure we remain effective in delivering our statutory objectives and priorities. Our transformation programme is designed to make us a more market-facing regulator and to evolve how we apply our risk-based approach, so we act earlier, target real harms and protect members. This means shifting to a more proactive and agile model focused on delivering good outcomes.
Responding to external review
The 2023 independent public bodies review recognised our commitment to good saver outcomes, but it highlighted the need for us to review our enforcement approach, resourcing, and communication around enforcement outcomes. This approach is our response.
What’s different about this approach
Our previous strategy delivered important successes, but our new approach sets out a high-level, principles-based framework that allows us to respond to risks faster and act earlier to prevent harm. It integrates enforcement with our supervision and market oversight work and centres our focus on delivering outcomes for members.
This design is intentional. It gives us flexibility to adapt to changing priorities and risks more swiftly while achieving our statutory objectives. Detailed requirements and scheme-specific expectations will sit in our underlying enforcement policies and guidance, which will be reviewed and developed as new legislation and regulations come into force.
Our guiding objectives
The approach is built around five objectives that support our wider statutory objectives and corporate priorities:
- Targeted enforcement that tackles key risks and harms to members with the greatest impact.
- Drive impactful enforcement through assertiveness, agility and collaboration.
- Decisive action, addressing non-compliance, regulatory breaches and economic crime.
- Enhanced transparency, influencing behaviour and standards to build trust, and support a safer pensions system.
- Data-driven enforcement, delivering value and better outcomes.
We will measure the effectiveness of our work against the four enforcement outcomes set out in the approach: prevention, reparation, accountability, and member confidence.
Questions we asked
We asked for your views on 10 questions. Not all respondents answered every question, and we were content to accept part-completed responses. Some respondents answered the free-text questions directly, while others included broader feedback and additional ideas.
Our response
For each question, we have set out what you told us and how we are responding. In some cases, we have grouped and reflected broader themes and feedback under the most relevant question.
1) Do you agree with the overall direction of the proposed enforcement approach?
What you told us:
Almost all respondents supported the direction of the approach, with 87% agreeing, including a significant proportion who expressed strong support. You welcomed the clearer articulation and the shift to a more targeted, outcomes-driven approach that acts earlier to prevent harm and works collaboratively to deliver good member outcomes. You asked for more clarity on how the principles will apply in practice for specific scheme types and highlighted the importance of administration quality and data integrity as drivers of member harm. Several responses sought reassurance on our approach towards economic crime and fraud.
Our response:
We are maintaining the overall direction and the five strategic objectives set out in the approach. We recognise that the principles-based design is high level. This is intentional as it allows flexibility across all scheme types and contexts as new risks and priorities emerge. However, we also understand this can make interpretation challenging for individual scenarios. More detail will be provided in our enforcement policies and guidance. As these policies are updated in line with the approach, developments in law and new priorities, they will continue to guide how the approach is applied in practice. We expect to update, amend and, where appropriate, consolidate our enforcement policies to simplify application, reduce duplication, and ensure consistency. Whilst we cannot provide explicit examples at this stage, we have included further detail in our responses to questions 2 and 3 to show how the approach works in practice.
We agree that administration and data quality are major drivers of member harm, and this is reflected in our framework outlined in our response to question 3.
On economic crime, we acknowledge that some respondents would have preferred this to be addressed in a dedicated section. While we considered that approach, the principles-based nature of the approach means it does not distinguish criminal enforcement from our broader regulatory enforcement activity at a strategic level. The objectives, outcomes, and how we assess potential cases apply to both. For this reason, certain parts of the approach include specific references to serious economic crime considerations rather than creating a standalone section. However, we have provided additional clarity in the approach under the section titled ‘Serious economic crime’ to reflect our approach.
To be clear, we will continue to pursue criminal investigations as part of our enforcement activity. We will take a targeted approach to ensure cases fall within our remit, risk appetite, align with our capabilities, and deliver meaningful impact. Where a potential case sits outside these parameters, we will work closely with our law enforcement partners to identify an appropriate lead agency or pursue alternative measures, such as civil regulatory powers or intelligence-led methods to disrupt criminal activity. We may also pursue joint investigation opportunities and provide specialist support to seek the best outcome for those affected.
As part of implementation, we have a specific programme looking at how we can enhance our criminal investigation processes and triaging. We continue to work with our operational partners including the National Economic Crime Centre, City of London Police and the Crown Prosecution Service, building on established relationships to support coordinated and effective responses. This collaborative approach is consistent with the Home Office’s fraud strategy and reflects wider best practice used by specialist law enforcement bodies in tackling fraud effectively.
Operationally, we will take the lead where pensions-specific offences clearly fall within our remit and capability. We will support partner agencies where they are best placed to act, including by sharing intelligence and expertise. We will also refer cases through the appropriate escalation routes where the conduct mainly involves non-pensions offences or where pensions offences are part of wider criminality. In all cases, we will seek to ensure victims can access appropriate support. Where we cannot provide this directly, we will signpost individuals to suitable agencies, including the National Victim Care Unit.
2) Is our approach sufficiently transparent and accountable?
What you told us:
Most respondents broadly agreed that our approach is transparent and accountable, but many asked for more practical clarity. Suggestions included publishing a decision‑making framework, setting out escalation thresholds, clarifying the role of internal panels and appeals, and improving feedback loops for whistleblowers and reporters. Several respondents also wanted us to publish enforcement outcomes more consistently, including where we decide not to take formal action.
Our response:
As we implement the new approach, many of our day-to-day processes will evolve. This includes how we decide to open and progress investigations, assess risks and issues, and escalate cases. A broad programme of work is underway to ensure the approach delivers effectively alongside our new team structures. We will continue to consider all feedback as this work progresses and as we review our underlying enforcement policies and guidance. This includes those relating to decision making and internal processes. We will also review our processes for contact with those who report potential breaches to us.
As we test and refine how the approach operates in practice, you may notice changes in our supervisory approach. Historically, supervision and enforcement teams have operated largely independently, resulting in longer assessment and handover periods when cases were considered for enforcement. A core objective of the new approach is to strengthen collaboration from the start of engagement. For example, you may see our enforcement specialists join supervision colleagues on engagements much earlier. Not necessarily because enforcement action is imminent, but to help set clear expectations, timelines, and actions to prevent escalation. Where these are not met, moving to enforcement will be smoother and faster.
3) Does the approach clearly explain how enforcement decisions will be made and prioritised from a strategic perspective?
What you told us:
Most respondents agreed that the impact–scale–complexity framework explains how enforcement decisions will be made and prioritised at a strategic level. Several respondents asked for clearer boundaries and examples of how the three factors interact in practice. They also wanted clarity on early intervention triggers and reassurance that proportionality applies to smaller and hybrid schemes, particularly during times of wider system pressure. Respondents also wanted assurance that early engagement and proactive self-reporting will be treated constructively and not penalised, and that decisions will be subject to human oversight.
Our response:
Our framework is an objective strategic tool designed to support professional judgement, not replace it. It helps us take a consistent, proportionate view of cases. It is used at regular review points so we can adjust priority as new information comes to light during an investigation. We make the final decision on whether to take formal enforcement action, and we are bringing our assurance processes together to provide strong oversight. We use impact, scale and complexity to guide prioritisation across regimes, applying proportionality and focusing on risk and harm. In practice, each factor is broken down into sub criteria that we assess using the best available evidence.
Impact considers actual or potential harm to members, market integrity, and member confidence. It is assessed as severe, high, moderate, limited or minimal.
- A severe impact case might involve clear indications of significant financial loss, serious misconduct, or a material risk to the Pension Protection Fund and wider market confidence.
- A minimal impact case could be a minor technical breach with limited or no material detriment to members or the market. In this case, formal action would be less likely unless we see repetition, escalation, or the issue is widespread.
Scale looks at the breadth of the issue: the number of members affected, potential contagion across schemes or employers, and whether similar failings appear elsewhere.
- A high scale case might affect thousands of members across multiple schemes, even if the underlying issue is straightforward.
- A low scale case might affect a very small number of members, but it does not mean we ignore the issue. We will still act proportionately, using the most appropriate tool to prevent recurrence and maintain standards.
Complexity captures the nature and intricacy of the case: legal or technical difficulty, cross border or multiparty features, and the level of specialist investigation required.
- A high complexity case could involve a large avoidance matter, multi scheme or cross-jurisdictional fraud, non-compliance impacting a large volume of members or a case involving a novel issue of fact or law.
- A low complexity case could be issues we face frequently, could be dealt with swiftly, and may not require extensive legal or technical input. Complexity on its own does not drive enforcement. We weigh it alongside impact and scale to ensure proportionate action. We have also refined the wording in the approach to clarify this, highlighted in our response to question 4.
We also consider other factors including the strength of evidence, whether there are vulnerable or high risk member groups, and whether we can achieve a good outcome within a specific timeframe. These other material factors ensure our decisions reflect context and practicality.
Importantly, administration quality and data integrity are important indicators of compliance, particularly when they are at scale. Failures here can create systemic harm (errors in records, payment delays, poor member communications), so they may raise the impact or scale rating even when issues appear ‘technical’. Throughout, decisions remain data-informed, not data-determined. We favour existing data sources and intelligence to minimise burden, and we apply human oversight at each decision point, documenting the rationale and recognising any limitations in the data we use.
Early engagement is designed to prevent escalation. Where appropriate, we will usually look to resolve an issue through guidance, targeted communications, engagement or an improvement plan. We have reflected this in the ‘Enforcement toolkit’ section of the approach. However, for matters involving significant harm, persistent non-compliance or where cooperative approaches have failed, we will not hesitate to consider appropriate use of powers.
4) Are there any areas where the proposed approach could be clearer or more accessible?
What you told us:
The most frequently mentioned topic was providing illustrative case examples and scenarios to highlight how the approach works in practice for specific types/sizes of schemes. The second most frequently mentioned request was more detail on our decision-making process for opening investigations or taking enforcement action. Other suggestions included requests for clearer signposting and definitions of key terms such as ‘real-world outcomes’, and clarity on the role of non-enforcement interventions.
Our response:
Earlier on, we provided further detail on how we expect the approach to operate in practice, including how cases may transition from supervision to enforcement and how we prioritise investigations. More detail on our processes is available in our existing policies, such as our case team procedures. We will also review whether we need to provide further clarity or additional case-based explanations and examples to help the market understand the new strategic approach. Based on your feedback, we have made several improvements to the drafting and structure of the approach, including:
- Making certain terms clearer and providing examples where appropriate.
- Numbering the strategic objectives.
- Refining our mission to explain our role in building a strong pensions system and how this supports an economically resilient pensions sector. We have also set out what we mean by resilience and how our new enforcement approach will protect members now and into the future.
- Expanding the section on serious economic crime to clarify when criminal enforcement may be needed, how we coordinate with law enforcement partners, and how we refer or support cases that fall outside our remit. We also explain how we make sure victims can access the right support.
- Refining the wording concerning ‘low complexity, low scale and low impact cases’ to refer to ‘low scale and low impact cases’ to clarify our general approach and avoid misinterpretation.
- Clarifying the outcomes section to make clear that enforcement is not only about accountability, but also about putting things right for members where possible, including restoring losses, correcting breaches and making sure individuals receive the benefits they are entitled to.
- Including examples in the ‘Enforcement toolkit’ of preventative measures we take to address risks early.
5) How well does the approach align with our broader shift toward a prudential, risk based regulatory model?
What you told us:
Most respondents agreed that the approach aligns with this shift, either without caveats or with some conditions. A small number of respondents either disagreed, did not understand the term, or expressed concerns about achieving this alignment. One respondent specifically asked us to define what ‘prudential’ means in the context of occupational pensions and trustees’ fiduciary duties. Across the feedback, there was a clear desire for assurance that decisions will not become mechanistic and that human oversight will remain central to enforcement. You also asked for assurance that data-driven tools will be human-led and that we will use existing reporting where possible to limit burden.
Our response:
We are confident that the approach is aligned to a prudential, risk based regulatory model. This approach means we will continue to focus on material risks and harms, acting proportionately and in context rather than applying rigid formulas. The prudential, risk-based model we are moving toward is designed to strengthen the shared focus on the risks that matter most to member outcomes. It emphasises sound governance, reliable data and good administration. All factors that underpin accurate benefits, clear communications and effective decision making. Our supervision approach reflects this by directing attention to areas where weaknesses can create wider harm. We recognise there may be occasions where broader system level considerations and scheme specific duties overlap, and we will ensure our principles are applied case-by-case with member outcomes at the centre.
Human oversight and proportionality help prevent rigid enforcement or the use of the same approach in every case, and they remain at the heart of our enforcement approach. We also recognise the feedback on limiting new or additional data and reporting burdens. We will aim to use existing data sources wherever possible for requirements that result from this approach and make sure it remains proportionate to scheme size and risk.
6) Are there risks or unintended consequences we should consider?
What you told us:
Respondents highlighted several risks that we should factor into implementation. The most frequent concerns were an over-reliance on data, a perceived tolerance of smaller-scale, lower-impact or lower-priority issues, and the risk of a disproportionate impact on smaller schemes. This includes recognising when targeted action in smaller schemes is warranted to address harm to individuals and reinforce market-wide expectations. You also pointed to possible overlaps with other regulators and asked how we would ensure consistent, technology-assisted decisions without losing human judgement. Several respondents raised broader risks (for example, environmental, social and governance (ESG) risks, administration quality and scheme-specific issues) that sit alongside the enforcement approach and need to be reflected across the wider regulatory framework.
Our response:
We agree these are important risks, and we will address them through data governance and validation, human oversight, proportionate prioritisation, and clear coordination with other regulators. This approach is grounded in the Regulators’ Code: we will seek to act proportionately, transparently and consistently, target activity where it is needed most, and base our work on risk rather than rote process. Our approach is data informed, not data determined. Decisions about opening investigations, escalation or closure will always be made by people, guided by our principles.
A risk-based approach does not mean ignoring lower scale or lower impact issues. We recognise these cases can still cause harm, especially for vulnerable members or where the same failings appear across multiple schemes. Our framework makes clear that impact, scale and complexity are considered together, not in isolation. Those factors outlined in our approach provide sufficient flexibility to deal with the full range of potential cases.
We will intervene early through supervisory engagement, guidance, targeted communications or improvement plans where that prevents escalation, reserving formal enforcement for the cases that need it. Our starting point is proportionality. We tailor expectations to the scale, resources and risk profile of the scheme, and favour education first responses, where appropriate. At the same time, we will not overlook serious detriment simply because a scheme is small. Where there is serious harm, we will prioritise appropriate action.
We recognise that areas of shared interest can arise across regulators, and we will seek to minimise duplication through clear communication, information sharing under existing legal gateways and collaboration. Our approach already underlines this commitment. In short, we have heard the concern that a risk-based model could place too much weight on data, miss ’smaller’ harms, or duplicate others’ roles. Our implementation is designed to avoid these issues. It keeps judgement at the centre, applies proportionality across schemes, and relies on coordinated regulation so action is taken by the right body at the right time, targeting the risks and issues that matter most to members.
7) Are there additional safeguards or clarifications you would like to see?
What you told us:
You asked for closer collaboration with industry and other bodies, clear guidance on fairness and proportionality across different scheme types and sizes, and simple explanations of processes, escalation pathways and the data we use. Some suggestions went wider than the enforcement approach (for example, publication targets, extra scheme return fields, and links to governance reviews).
Our response:
We’ve heard your feedback and will build these considerations into our implementation plans and align them with the mitigations we set out earlier. Broader suggestions will be shared internally with the relevant teams. We will also look to align our approach with partner bodies and, where helpful, signpost to established industry standards and guidance to help schemes implement good practice.
8) How can we best measure the success of this approach in delivering real-world outcomes for savers?
What you told us:
Respondents suggested a wide range of ideas for measuring the success of the approach with some being unique and specific to certain scenarios. The measurement of outcomes and not just case volumes or outputs was received positively. The most frequently mentioned suggestions were improvements in scheme data quality, administration, cyber resilience, and reporting. The speed of enforcement actions was also mentioned by a number of respondents. Other suggestions included:
- seeking positive feedback from stakeholders
- members and schemes
- improved recovery rates
- increase in trustee accreditation and improved governance
- fewer complaints
- improved member experience and communication
- harm prevention
- increase in visible enforcement outcomes
You recognised that some of these, particularly measuring behavioural change and member confidence, are more challenging.
Our response:
We have a programme of work underway to align how we measure our success against the four enforcement outcomes, as well as our wider corporate priorities. We will consider all feedback as we continue to develop our key performance indicators and targets during implementation. Where appropriate, we will work in partnership with industry and stakeholders to help us develop and understand these measures of success better (for example, measuring behavioural change and member confidence), and will consider publishing specific targets to ensure we remain accountable.
More broadly, our Market Oversight teams continue to develop specific strategies focused on third-party administrators, and scheme cyber security. We have shared your feedback internally to ensure any comments are captured and considered when policies and guidance are developed.
9) Which enforcement policies should be prioritised for review?
What you told us:
Broadly, respondents suggested prioritising policies that address better member outcomes, retirement, and vulnerable members. The suggestion mentioned most often was our scheme management enforcement policy. Administration and data quality were also mentioned. Respondents also provided broader suggestions beyond the scope of our enforcement policies, and one respondent asked whether automatic enrolment (AE) enforcement policies were in scope.
Our response:
All enforcement policies are in scope, including AE enforcement. The approach is adaptable to all scheme types. We will prioritise reviews of the highest impact policies and sequence any updates to minimise burden and maximise clarity. We have noted the consultation feedback on prioritisation of policies and will consider this within our implementation plans. We will also consider the most effective ways to engage stakeholders to help ensure updates are proportionate and deliver the intended outcomes.
10) Any other comments, suggestions, or concerns?
What you told us:
Overall feedback on the approach was positive. Some respondents emphasised the need for timely publication of outcomes, consistency in decision-making and adequate resourcing and staff capability. You also asked us to consider scenarios when enforcement could be unhelpful (for example, during periods where trustee governance is improving) and raised specific points about how the approach affects local government pension schemes.
Our response:
We welcome the overall support and will reflect the operational points in implementation. We will continue to keep under review how we explain and share enforcement outcomes, while recognising legal and confidentiality constraints.
Our impact-scale-complexity framework helps us ensure consistency in decision making, while retaining discretion for how we regulate specific cases. We recognise the point about resourcing and capability. As we roll out the approach, we will continue to invest in training, mentoring, and deployment models so case teams have the right expertise at the right time with subject matter experts. The approach prioritises early, targeted intervention to prevent harm and encourages proactive self-reporting.
Enforcement remains an important tool where cooperation fails, risks escalate, or harm is significant. This balance supports trustee boards that are improving governance while preserving accountability where standards fall short. On sector-specific points, we will address detail through our underlying policies and guidance. We will continue to engage with public service stakeholders and ensure any scheme specific governance factors are reflected in policy materials and supervisory coordination where appropriate.
Other feedback and overarching themes
Some feedback did not relate directly to the consultation questions but is relevant to implementation. This includes systemic drivers behind breach spikes, closer scrutiny of small self-administered scheme (SSAS) markets, and updates to our Trustee Toolkit and governance research. We will feed these points into related workstreams for consideration and development.
Next steps
Our new enforcement approach is now in place.
We will implement the approach through a phased programme of work. This includes reviewing our internal processes, policies and governance, as well as our externally published enforcement policies and guidance, starting with high-impact areas. We will develop an outcomes-aligned set of metrics to measure the success of enforcement activity and will continue to engage with our regulatory partners and stakeholders as we progress.
List of consultation respondents
The following respondents consented to being named in our consultation response.
- Aptia
- Ario Advisory
- Association of Pensions Lawyers
- Firefighters’ Pension Scheme
- Forum of Private Business
- Independent Governance Group
- Isio
- Lane Clark & Peacock LLP
- Laurence Edward Buckley
- Local Government Association
- Local Government Pensions Committee
- London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham
- Pensions Scams Industry Group
- Phoenix Group
- Pi Partnership Group
- Sanctum Software
- The Society of Pension Professionals
- TPT Retirement Solutions
- Zedra Governance