When the Wandsworth Council Joint Pensions Committee finally published the video and transcript of its March 25 meeting, it came not with a press release or explanation—but after nearly a month of silence and repeated requests from Putney.news.
What the long-awaited materials reveal is a meeting in which Council officers admitted to years of underperformance in the borough’s £3.2 billion pension fund—all while the public was kept in the dark.
The council’s investment portfolio has suffered notable setbacks, particularly in property and equity mandates. One of the poorest performing assets, the Nuveen UK Property Fund (UKPF), delivered disappointing returns over multiple years and was ultimately deemed no longer viable. As officers explained, “we’ve had some challenges in relation to… the Nuveen Property Fund” and had to take urgent action to avoid becoming forced sellers in a declining market.
In fact, the pension fund has had to rely on investment income simply to meet outgoing payments, a sign of mounting pressure. The fund’s strategy of holding yield-generating illiquid assets like infrastructure and private debt was designed to help offset this, but several key investments have still underperformed their benchmarks, contributing to an overall shortfall.
As one officer summarised to councillors, “even after we reinvest some of that money… we are continuing to deliver excess income from our returns,” but only narrowly—leaving “not that much comfort” when it comes to meeting cash needs from investments alone. The result, acknowledged in a March report, is a £7.2 million deficit, reversing what had previously been a £350 million surplus just a year ago.
These admissions are significant in their own right. But what makes them even more troubling is how the public only learned of them after the fact—thanks to a series of delays and obstructions in the meeting’s broadcast and publication.
A Missing Livestream and a Month of Silence
The meeting was supposed to be livestreamed on the Wandsworth Council webcast platform, as is routine for major committee sessions. But on the night of 25 March, no livestream was available. Visitors to the webcast page found only a placeholder and no explanation.
When Putney.news contacted the Council the following day, we were told that there had been a “technical failure of the broadcasting equipment.” However, officers confirmed that a local recording had been made and that they were “hopeful of being able to publish this shortly,” though they “could not give a date.”
A follow-up request on 28 March was met with a polite but vague assurance that we would be notified when the recording was ready. But no update ever came—and it wasn’t until 22 April, nearly a month later and after a third email, that the video and transcript suddenly appeared on the Council’s website. Within an hour of our request, the materials were posted.
This highly selective timing raises the question: if the video and transcript were already available, why weren’t they published sooner?
Adding to the concern is the fact that, to our knowledge, no other Wandsworth Council webcast has suffered a similar “technical failure” in recent memory. The Council maintains a full archive of meetings on its public webcast portal, and a review of recent listings shows no other unexplained blackout like the one seen on 25 March.
Which leads to a more troubling possibility: that the livestream may not have failed—but may have been intentionally withheld.
What Was the Council Trying to Avoid?
One part of the meeting that was particularly sensitive involved the transition of the Nuveen UK Property Fund (UKPF) to the new TPUT Property Fund. This item had been flagged on the agenda as potentially confidential, with a notice that the press and public could be excluded under the “commercial sensitivity” exemption.
Yet when the meeting took place, that item was not moved into a private session. In fact, the entire discussion about TPUT—including Wandsworth’s vote to approve the fund merger—was held in public. So if no part of the meeting was ultimately held in private, why was the entire session not streamed at all? Or did the Council’s never intend to post the video and only relented after Putney.news repeatedly asked for it?
Council officers offered a long explanation for the Nuveen fund’s failure. The core issue, they said, was liquidity. When another investor issued a large redemption request, it triggered a collapse in the fund’s structure, forcing all other investors—Wandsworth included—to either sell their property assets at fire-sale prices or find a better alternative.
“We talked about the size of property funds… when you’ve got a small fund, a redemption… can then trigger substantial impacts for other investors—and that’s clearly what happened here,” said one officer.
Wandsworth Council chose to support a transfer into the Threadneedle Property Unit Trust (TPUT), managed by Columbia Threadneedle. Officers said 98% of voting investors backed the move, and “100% of those who voted, voted in favour.”
The TPUT presentation, given by Columbia fund managers, promised better performance, ESG oversight, and a long-term future. But the key fact remained: Wandsworth’s £40.3 million in Nuveen had underperformed, and the Council had to act quickly to prevent deeper losses.
A Wider Pattern of Financial Pressure
The admission of underperformance within the pension fund forms part of a broader picture of financial strain at Wandsworth Council.
As previously reported by Putney.news on 15 March, the borough’s finances are under mounting pressure. A £7.2 million pension deficit sits alongside a £100 million capital shortfall, and a funding gap that has led to warnings of a potential black hole in the council’s medium-term financial strategy.
Even more concerning is Wandsworth’s growing reliance on reserves to plug holes in its day-to-day spending. As detailed in a 5 March report, the council has committed to drawing down over £50 million in reserves over the next three years to balance its books—a move the borough’s own scrutiny committee described as unsustainable.
Meanwhile, the council’s overall debt now exceeds £1.9 billion, driven in part by ambitious housing and infrastructure projects. A March report warned this growing debt could become a ticking timebomb, especially if interest rates remain high and external income assumptions prove over-optimistic.
Transparency Still Matters
The challenges facing Wandsworth are complex and far from unique. Many councils are struggling to keep services running amid rising costs, pension liabilities, and squeezed funding. But this only makes transparency more essential.
The fact that a meeting where the Council admitted serious financial weaknesses in its pension fund was not livestreamed, not promptly published, and only released after public pressure—undermines confidence in the borough’s approach to accountability.
Residents and pensioners are not asking for perfection. But they have a right to expect honesty—and to be able to watch these conversations in real time, not weeks later.
In the end, how Wandsworth Council communicates its financial reality may prove just as important as the numbers themselves.
I find it hard to believe that a managed property fund is allowed to flounder in this manner – wtf is going on at Wandsworth and who is responsible for this mess. When I worked in the City as a money trader for various banks from 1982-1994 checks were constantly made to ensure that any problems from mismanagement or indeed fraud – not that I am implying anything untoward – never happened and no surprises were ever unearthed during an annual audit. It would seem that there does not appear to be much transparency here and serious questions need to be asked. A £3.2 bn pension fund is not a trivial amount and some serious questions need to asked and adressed NOW!