Wandsworth Council pension officers told the board overseeing the borough’s £1.1 billion pension fund that performance was “excellent” – while data buried in the same report showed nearly half of residents trying to transfer their pensions were experiencing significant delays.
A review of the pension board’s papers also reveals that officers have taken more than a year to implement transparency requirements from regulators, and then failed to draw attention to startling failure rates affecting hundreds of residents trying to access their own money.
The failures only came to light after national regulators required all pension funds to adopt standardised performance measures in March 2024, shifting from whether people were provided with information about the value of their pension, to being able to actually access their funds.
Proving with some clarity the well-known phrase ‘what gets measured gets managed’ – and possibly extending it to ‘what doesn’t get measured gets hidden’ – council officers appear to have decided that maintaining their 98% KPI score is more important than publicly addressing the issues that have been uncovered.
The misrepresentation
In a report to the Local Pension Board on 9 February 2026, officers wrote that “performance indicators show an excellent standard is maintained” and that service standards were “consistent with previous years achievements.”
But data in Appendix A of the same report showed:
| Metric | Q2 2025 (Jul-Sep) | Q3 2025 (Oct-Dec) | Target | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Transfer In Actual | 55.36% | 29.17% | 98% | -42.64 to -68.83 points |
| Transfer Out Actual | 62.03% | 57.06% | 98% | -35.97 to -40.94 points |
For years, Wandsworth had measured how quickly it could tell people what their pension was worth (achieving 95%+ success rates). It never measured how long it actually took to move their money – until national rules forced it to.
What was being measured – and what wasn’t
The distinction between what the council measured and what it ignored reveals the scale of the governance failure:
| Measurement Category | Performance | Status |
|---|---|---|
| What they measured (voluntarily) | ||
| Transfer Quotes: “How fast we give you a valuation” | 95%+ | ✓ |
| Death acknowledgements | 100% | ✓ |
| Retirement letters | 99%+ | ✓ |
| Divorce quotes | 100% | ✓ |
| What they didn’t measure (until obliged) | ||
| Transfer Actuals: “How fast we actually move your money” | 55% | ✗ |
A pension fund member’s typical experience would be receiving a valuation within days (counted as success), then requesting the actual transfer and waiting months with no clear timeline (not measured at all until July 2025).
The council has not disclosed how long members actually waited, or what the target timeframe is that 45% of Wandsworth Council pension transfers missed.
The implementation delay
National pension regulators (Scheme Advisory Board and CIPFA) published guidance on 28 March 2024 requiring all Local Government Pension Scheme funds to adopt standardised Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), specifically to prevent funds from gaming the system by choosing which metrics to report.
The guidance applied to the 2023/24 fiscal year and allowed funds to use “best endeavours” for that first year where implementation would require “disproportionate effort.”
Wandsworth’s timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| March 2024 | Guidance published |
| April 2024 – March 2025 | Entire 2024/25 fiscal year passes – no measurement |
| July 2025 | First measurement – reveals 81%/67% failure |
| October 2025 | Second measurement – shows collapse to 29%/57% |
| February 2026 | Officers finally report to Board – but call it “excellent” |
During the 16 months between guidance publication and first measurement, Wandsworth members experiencing transfer delays had no way to know this was a systematic failure rather than their individual case.
The member impact
Between July and December 2025 – the only period for which data exists – 479 pension transfer cases were processed. In Q2 (July-September), the fund handled 130 Transfer In and 100 Transfer Out cases. In Q3 (October-December), this shifted to 72 Transfer In and 177 Transfer Out cases.
Of these, 45% missed the target timescale. Performance worsened dramatically in Q3, with 71% of Transfer In cases missing the target.
These are residents trying to consolidate their pensions, move to a new employer’s scheme, or take control of their retirement savings. Each delay affects financial planning and retirement timing.
What members are saying
Public reviews of the Pensions Shared Service paint a picture consistent with the performance data. The service has a 1.18 out of 5 rating on Google, with members reporting persistent problems accessing the service and experiencing delays.
“The worst disastrous service ever,” wrote one reviewer. “They promise and assure you they’ll do something on time” – a complaint echoed across multiple reviews spanning several years.
One member reported not receiving annual statements for nine years despite repeated assurances. Another described being unable to log into the online portal while the phone system directs callers to the website.
“Finally got the phone to ring someone… and they cut me off. THEY ARE USELESS.”
The reviews document the member experience behind the statistics: anxiety from missed deadlines, forms submitted but never acknowledged, inability to reach staff by phone, and pension payments sent to wrong accounts.
While the council measures 95%+ success at providing transfer quotes, members describe a different reality: “I have been chasing them since last year and their answer is we are calculating please call after three months one month one week but nothing has happened.”
The November silence
The governance challenge extends beyond the presentation of the data – the board minutes suggest officers did not highlight the issue when the problem first appeared.
The Local Pension Board met in November 2025 and received performance data showing the first measurement: 81% and 67% performance vs 98% targets. The board minutes from that meeting discuss investment performance concerns but make no mention of the transfer crisis.
Three months later, with performance having collapsed to 29% and 57%, officers presented the data again – describing it as “excellent performance maintained.”
The pattern: measurement avoidance
For years, Wandsworth reported “excellent” administration performance by measuring only processes it controlled and did well at.
The 2018/19 CIPFA guidance “Administration in the LGPS” specifically warned about this pattern, noting that funds were focusing on “the period from when all data is received… to when the administration team complete that task” rather than measuring the full member experience.
National regulators designed the new standardised KPIs specifically to close this gap and ensure all funds measure the same things, making performance comparable and preventing selective reporting.
In Wandsworth’s case, implementation took 16 months from the publication of national guidance to the first measurement, with the results then appearing in appendices rather than being highlighted in executive summaries.
The staffing link
The pension fund’s own Risk Register rates “Partnership Staffing Resources” as High risk (score 8), noting “lack of trained staff to undertake the administration of the LGPS leading to loss of confidence in PSS by both customers and Partners.”
Controls listed include “continually exploring new technology as a response to increased demands on the PSS via legislative changes, increases in scheme members and specific requests from Partners.”
Despite identifying staffing as a high risk and transfer processing as a catastrophic failure, the fund’s Work Plan shows no specific remedial action scheduled to address the crisis.
What this reveals about local government accountability
The Wandsworth case reveals a broader problem with how councils report performance, as seen in previous coverage of £350m pension surplus evaporating to £7.2m deficit, £3.2bn pension mismanagement, and the forensic review launched by auditors.
Governance by appendix: Critical failures are disclosed in data tables while the executive summary describes overall performance positively. Board members must dig into detailed appendices and calculate percentage gaps themselves to spot problems – a pattern that raises questions about how significant underperformance should be flagged to oversight bodies.
Selective measurement: The pattern across local government shows a tendency to measure processes that demonstrate competence (what councils control) rather than outcomes that affect residents (what residents experience). When new outcome measures are required, implementation can be slower and results less prominently featured – a pattern also documented in council betting on pension returns double what achieved and concerns about transparency in pension fund management.
Transparency theatre: Information is technically available but presented in ways that make patterns difficult to spot – through executive summaries that emphasize positive performance, data placement in detailed appendices, and limited contextual explanation – an approach repeatedly observed in the £40m council overspend and concerns about Cabinet transparency.
Opposition councillors now question what other council services report “excellent” performance without measuring the outcomes that actually affect residents.
What You Can Do
If you’re experiencing delays with your Wandsworth Council pension transfer or concerned about your pension administration:
Monitor your transfer: Ask Pensions Shared Service (020 8871 6594, pensions@richmondandwandsworth.gov.uk) for updates every 4-6 weeks. Request specific timeline information and completion dates in writing.
Complain if delayed: If your transfer is taking longer than seems reasonable (the council won’t disclose the target timeframe), submit a formal complaint to the Pensions Shared Service. Escalate to the Pensions Ombudsman if unsatisfied.
Access your data: You can request information about your specific case through Subject Access Request under GDPR. Ask for all communications, processing dates, and any internal notes about delays affecting your transfer.
Report serious concerns: Contact The Pensions Regulator if you believe there are serious governance failures. The Scheme Advisory Board also accepts concerns about LGPS administration standards.
Further background on pension transfers, the regulatory framework, and detailed timeline of events is available in the supporting materials for this investigation.
Accountability Statement
We contacted: The council’s Cabinet Member for Finance, Director of Financial Services, and its press office.
Request sent: 2 February 2026
Cllr Angela Ireland, Paul Guilliotti, Wandsworth Council
Cabinet Member for Finance, Director of Financial Services, Press Office
Status: No response received.
Questions asked (click to expand)
Is 55% performance against a 98% target considered “excellent” by Wandsworth Council? If so, what is the definition of “excellent”?
Why did it take 16 months from the publication of national guidance (March 2024) to begin measuring transfer processing times (July 2025)?
Why was the 81%/67% underperformance shown in November 2025 Appendix A not mentioned in the November board minutes?
What is the target timeframe for completing pension transfers? How long did members actually wait on average during July-December 2025?
The Risk Register identifies Partnership Staffing as High risk. What is the connection between staffing levels and transfer processing failures?
Paper 26-43 states service standards are “consistent with previous years achievements.” If Transfer In/Out Actual was not measured in previous years, how can you claim consistency?
How many complaints about transfer delays were received between July-December 2025?
What specific actions are being taken to improve Transfer In/Out Actual performance to meet the 98% target? When do you expect to achieve this?
There is a pattern here, seen also in the responses to the ballooning number of findings by the Housing Ombudsman against Wandsworth. Officers produce complacent ‘nothing to see here’ reports, which the most cursory glance at the figures (when they are finally revealed) do not support. Neither the Cabinet nor the Scrutiny function (the latter being largely subservient to the former) seem terribly interested. And suddenly Wandsworth is found to be failing in areas such as Housing and everyone acts surprised. I know this is a minor thing but over a period computers and phones have been remove from the Members’ Room (where Councillors can come to work) – we are now down to one unreliable computer and one printer – and simple things like copying paper and Council headed paper (for letters to the many residents who don’t have Internet access) are no longer provided. Yet a recent Standards Committee paper (January 26) claimed that officers were “committed to helping Members fulfil their responsibilities efficiently”.
Many, many years ago a particular friend of mine, and I often used to complain about the utter incompetence coupled with unjustifiably high salaries we came across in virtually every aspect of our lives – we were both in professional jobs where anything less than 100% accuracy was simply not an option. I can always remember musing how on earth it was that the country was able to keep going with the level of incompetence we both came across – I suppose we are now finding that out !!
Today I heard about the delays in paying Civil Service pensions and other administrative delays. This time Capita was implicated as the administration of Civil Service pensions was recently outsourced to Capita (in spite of the recent cyber attack there which compromised the data of millions of people, including me). My own experience of Capita was very poor, even before my data was compromised, and I would suggest that many chickens are now coming home to roost since the liberalisation of pensions, which in turn led to more and more regulation to “protect” pensioners who cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be expected to understand the immense complexity of the pension rules which have built up over the years. Unfortunately and unsurprisingly this incredibly complex area regulation is not understood by those meant to be administering pensions – therein seems to lie the problem both with Wandsworth Council, and I rather suspect organisations across the whole of the country.