Consultation outcome

Government response to the public consultation on proposals to amend the Occupational and Personal Pension Schemes (Conditions for Transfers) Regulations 2021

Updated 3 November 2026

Ministerial Foreword

This government is determined to take action wherever it identifies the potential for pension scams or fraudulent misuse. I would therefore like to thank everyone who engaged with this consultation. Your expertise, insight and experience have been invaluable in helping us refine these proposals and ensure the measures are proportionate and appropriately targeted at the areas of greatest concern.

I am pleased to see the responses demonstrate a shared commitment to safeguarding pension assets and ensuring savers are appropriately protected.

Levels of Defined Contribution (DC) savings have grown significantly over recent years making them a more attractive target for scammers. Government must ensure robust protection for pension savers and will take action against fraud wherever it occurs.

This is why we are taking immediate action to improve the protections against potential risks associated with Small Self-Administered Pension Schemes (SSAS), in light of stakeholder feedback.

We are also helping the transfers framework work more efficiently by smoothing processes in low-risk areas, allowing trustees greater focus on areas which may present higher risk.

Amendments to these regulations will be laid in due course, with a planned coming into force date in April 2027. Setting out our position now provides trustees, scheme administrators, and other stakeholders with early notification of the changes we intend to make. We will continue to work with industry and regulators to ensure a smooth implementation of these changes.

Introduction

1. This document sets out the government’s response to the Protecting Pension Savers - Proposals to Amend the Occupational and Personal Pension Schemes (Conditions for Transfers) Regulations 2021, including its consideration of the views and evidence submitted by respondents, but it is not an exhaustive commentary on every response received.

2. The response document details:

• The background to the Occupational and Personal Pension Schemes (Conditions for Transfers) Regulations 2021 (the regulations).
• Summaries of the responses and key themes.
• How the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has considered the responses received, and how these have informed refinements to the original proposals and the development of the government’s final policy position.

Background

3. The regulations were introduced to give trustees and scheme managers of occupational and personal pension schemes the tools and powers to intervene, where there is a risk of scam activity, while still ensuring the vast majority of legitimate transfers can proceed smoothly. The regulations establish a framework of statutory conditions and risk indicators designed to protect pension scheme members from pension scams when members exercise their statutory right to transfer pension benefits out of their scheme to another occupational or personal pension scheme.

4. The regulations were made under delegated powers which enable the Secretary of State to update and refine them through further secondary legislation, either to improve processes in light of operational feedback or to respond to the changing nature of scams. This allows the government to act in the face of emerging threats in the pensions market and to make necessary procedural improvements without requiring primary legislation.

5. In 2023, DWP, in partnership with pensions regulators, the Money and Pensions Service (MaPS) and the pensions industry, reviewed how the regulations were operating in practice, drawing on evidence from industry, casework, and wider insight.

6. This work identified areas where the regulations presented procedural challenges and led to the development of targeted amendments to strengthen the effectiveness and clarity of the transfer regulations. These include procedural refinements designed to address operational issues raised by trustees and administrators, alongside a specific measure to address an emerging risk.

7. To invite public feedback DWP held a consultation on these proposed amendments which opened on the 9th of June 2026 and ran until the 21st of July 2026.

8. This Consultation is part of a broader programme of work, in alignment with the government fraud strategy 2026 to 2029, relating to pension scams and pension transfers.

The Proposed amendments

9. The amendments proposed in the consultation were:

• To address an emerging Small Self-Administered Scheme (SSAS). concern by the introduction of a new red flag to Regulation 8(5) where a transfer is proposed and the evidence provided does not demonstrate an employment link with the receiving occupational pension scheme.
• Revising Regulations 6(1),7(3) and (4) to broaden the First Condition so criteria may also be met where trustees are satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the transfer is to a ‘reputable’ pension scheme.
• Inclusion of a non‑exhaustive list of factors to which trustees and scheme managers may have regard when assessing whether a receiving scheme is ‘reputable’ as part of their due diligence.
• Amending Regulation 9(1A) to include an exemption to the requirement for a member to take Money and Pension Service (MaPS) guidance, in circumstances where members have already taken MaPS guidance within the last 12 months.
• Removing the Overseas Investment Amber Flag in Regulation 9(5)(d).

10. The legislative references referred to here are subject to change in the finalised regulations.

Summary of consultation responses

11. We received 64 responses across a wide range of pension industry stakeholders, including 23 pension providers, 16 pension administrators, 8 industry bodies, 5 advisers, 8 law firms or legal bodies, 3 members of the public, and 1 arms-length body.

12. All responses supported the broad objective of strengthening protections against pension scams while minimising friction where there is no obvious risk to the individual, with no responses opposed to the general purpose of amending the regulations.

13. There was general support for most core proposals, including the broadening of the regulations at the First Condition to allow a more straightforward route for low-risk transfers, and the removal of the overseas investment amber flag at the Second Condition. Responses were also generally supportive of the proposed exemption to the current need for repeated MaPS guidance, when consolidating pension pots.

14. However, some responses raised concerns around the practical implementation of the changes, highlighting a need for clarity, particularly regarding the use of ‘reputable’ at Condition One. There was widespread support for including a non-exhaustive list of factors to assist this assessment.

15. Measures intended to provide enhanced protections for transfers into a SSAS were also broadly welcomed, with respondents agreeing this was a high-risk area. However, some respondents had concerns about the application of aspects of the measure, and some called for additional protections.

Chapter One: Risks and trends in Small Self-Administered Schemes operations

16. To reduce the risks specific to SSAS transfers we proposed a targeted amendment to the Second Condition of the regulations, requiring trustees to request evidence of an employment link between the transferring member and the receiving SSAS scheme. Where such a relationship cannot be established, a red flag will apply.

We asked:

Question 1

17. Do you foresee any issues with the planned wording of the flag in regulation 8 of Annex A?

Question 2

18. Are you aware of any emerging concerns, risks or scam activity, such as those arising in SSASs or other pension arrangements, where existing consumer protections or regulatory safeguards may not be sufficient?

Question 3

19. Do you consider the focus on the employment link to be an appropriate and effective measure for addressing the concerns relating to SSAS transfers?

Respondent’s views

20. Overall, responses demonstrated broad support for the proposed SSAS employment link measure, alongside a range of views on its design and practical application.

21. In answer to Question 1, 30 responses supported the addition of the SSAS red flag and did not foresee any issues with the draft wording of the measure. A further 7 raised potential considerations relating to evidence requirements, but did not oppose the employment link test, provided those concerns were resolved.

22. However, 8 were not in favour of the proposal as they believed more robust changes were needed to protect against risks for SSASs. A further 5 commented without expressing a view for or against the proposed amendment.

23. Majority support was also reflected in responses to Question 3, concerning the reliability of the employment link as a potential scams indicator. Of 57 responses, 29 considered this be an effective measure. 12 responses commented without either support or opposition.

24. A further 9 respondents felt that whilst the employment link was a reliable risk indicator, some of the evidence required to satisfy it may not be applicable in all circumstances. A further 7 responses felt evidence of a valid employment link did not provide complete protection for SSAS transfers and called for an alternative approach.

25. In addition, 23 responses to Question 2, which sought views on emerging risks and potential gaps in existing consumer protections, raised concerns about scam risks in SSASs, providing further evidence in support of enhanced safeguards.

26. The SSAS employment link was also considered in a small number of responses to the Chapter Two questions, where views were again generally supportive. Taken together, the feedback provided across the consultation, indicates that assessing the employment link could provide a valuable measure of risk and strengthen protections for SSAS transfers.

We agree the employment link can be an appropriate and relevant measure. It can help evidence whether a SSAS is being used for its intended purpose.

[Pensions Administration Standards Association (PASA)]

27. However, alongside this, respondents also highlighted some practical considerations that have informed further refinement of the policy and the government’s final position.

28. Some responses raised concerns that legitimate SSAS members may be unable to provide evidence of an employment link where they do not receive standard salaries. Other anomalous challenges may also be present where the sponsoring employer no longer exists, or in circumstances where legitimate users are family members but not directly employed by the sponsoring employer.

In our experience, it is often the case that a member of a SSAS cannot provide all of the evidence to demonstrate the employment link.   This may be, for example, because the SSAS was set up some time ago and contributions are no longer paid and / or the member is a director of the sponsoring employer and they do not receive any salary.

The inability to provide all of the requested evidence can arise in respect of SSASs set up for entirely legitimate reasons, as well as those set up for nefarious reasons.

[Society for Pension Professionals]

29. A significant number of responses felt there were other risks for SSAS transfers which were not related to the absence of an employment link and asked for further measures to sit alongside those outlined in the proposals.

(SSAS) members can be trustees only on paper. For example, we have seen cases where members say they cannot access the scheme bank account, do not receive meeting papers or reports, are not involved in decisions, and are not given financial information…   Additional questions may be helpful in assessing scam risk in relation to SSAS: Does the member understand that they are trustees?

[Pension Protection Fund]

Our response

30. After considering the issues raised in the responses, we remain satisfied that the SSAS employment link test provides an important additional safeguard against the risks associated with SSAS transfers, while recognising no single measure can provide complete protection against all such risks.

31. We intend to proceed with our proposal that a red flag will be present where the trustees or managers of the transferring scheme determine the evidence does not demonstrate an employment link between the member and the receiving scheme.

32. We have, however, taken account of feedback that, in some circumstances, members seeking to make legitimate SSAS transfers may not be able to provide conventional evidence of an employment link.

33. We will therefore support trustees and scheme managers with details of the type of information and evidence which may be considered when making this assessment; this will extend to the circumstances raised in some responses, such as eligible family members and other [office holder] relationships. We also recognise concerns that members may not always fully understand the responsibilities and potential liabilities associated with participation in a SSAS and agree there is a case for providing members with additional support before a transfer proceeds.

34. Therefore, to further enhance protections for savers, in addition to the employment relationship test we intend to introduce a new amber flag in the regulations for transfers into a SSAS where an employment or other relevant relationship has been demonstrated and the transfer is otherwise able to go ahead. This will require the individual to attend a MaPS guidance appointment before the transfer can proceed.

35. This appointment will provide members with MaPS guidance on the responsibilities, governance requirements and potential liabilities associated with participation in a SSAS, helping them to make a more informed decision before proceeding with the transfer.

Chapter Two: Protecting savers, improving transfers

The First Condition

36. Feedback during the review of the regulations indicated that the First Condition was too narrow and could require trustees to assess transfers under the Second Condition, even where they had no concerns that the transfer posed a risk.

37. To address this, we proposed revising Regulation 6(1) to broaden the First Condition so it may also be met where trustees are satisfied, that the transfer is to a ‘reputable’ pension scheme.

38. We also proposed the regulations include a non‑exhaustive list of factors to which trustees and scheme managers may have regard when assessing whether a receiving scheme is ‘reputable’.

We asked:

Question 4

39. Do you agree with this proposed approach, including the use of a non-exhaustive list of factors? If so, we would welcome your views on what those factors should be. We also welcome your input, including any evidence-based views, on its effectiveness and practical workability.

Question 5

40. Do you foresee any issues in the practical implementation of the amended regulations?

Question 6

41. Do you foresee any issues with the proposed wording of the amendments to the regulations, as detailed in Annex A?

Respondent’s views

42. There was wide support for broadening the First Condition, with no responses opposed to the overall policy intent. However, there were calls for clarity on how this would be practically applied.

43. Out of the 61 responses to Question 4, 58 supported broadening the First Condition, and 3 stated no position.

44. Likewise, the majority of responses to Question 5 did not foresee significant issues with the practical implementation of the amendments, although many highlighted the need for clear indicators to support the application.

45. Although responses were otherwise in support of extending the First Condition, a minority of respondents did suggest alternative wording to ‘reputable’ such as ‘trustworthy’ or ‘acceptable’.

We recommend using ‘acceptable’ instead which better reflects the operational decision being made.

 [Pension Administration Standards Association (PASA)]

46. As noted above, respondents expressed strong support for the inclusion of a non-exhaustive list of factors to support the assessment of whether a receiving scheme is reputable. However, views were divided as to whether these factors should be set out in legislation or in guidance issued by the Pensions Regulator (TPR), with no clear consensus emerging in favour of either option.

Our response

47. Whilst we have carefully considered the alternative wording suggested by some respondents, we remain satisfied that ‘reputable’ is the most appropriate term. We will therefore proceed as proposed in the consultation and extend ‘reputable’ schemes to those able to satisfy criteria at the First Condition.

48. In response to strong support, a non-exhaustive list of factors to assist this assessment will be provided. This will provide clarity that enables the measure to be understood and applied as consistently as possible.

49. Using the insights provided in the consultation responses, DWP will work with TPR to develop the list of factors to ensure they accurately capture the most appropriate safe characteristics.

MaPS Guidance Exemption

50. To prevent individuals from having to attend multiple safeguarding MaPS appointments, particularly when consolidating pension pots prior to retirement, we proposed introducing an exemption in circumstances where the member has already attended a MaPS appointment in the previous 12 months.

Respondent’s views

51. There was broad support for this measure, with no responses opposing the exemption in principle, however some raised concerns about the practical application of the measure in certain circumstances.

Whilst some members are referred for MaPS guidance as part of the amber flag process relating to multiple transfers, we also see members who obtain MaPS guidance proactively at the outset of their transfer journey, before any amber flag has been identified.   It would therefore be helpful to clarify whether the proposed exemption will apply in all cases where a member has received MaPS guidance within the previous 12 months, regardless of the circumstances in which that guidance was obtained, or only where the guidance was undertaken in response to an amber flag under the transfer regulations.   Clear supporting guidance is required on how trustees and administrators will be expected to evidence and verify this.

[Willis Towers Watson ]

52. Some respondents also asked for the exemption to apply only to transfers to the same receiving scheme as they believe transfers to a different subsequent scheme could potentially present new risks.

We are not convinced that a previous guidance session will always remain relevant, particularly where the subsequent transfer involves a different receiving scheme, investment arrangement or set of potential scam indicators, or where the member’s circumstances have changed.   We therefore suggest that DWP consider whether the exemption should be restricted to subsequent transfer requests involving the same receiving scheme.

[Local Government Association (LGA)]

Our response

53. As the measure to address the current need for multiple MaPS appointments received broad support, we intend to proceed with the proposed exemption in most circumstances.

54. We recognise the valuable role the MaPS appointment plays in helping individuals understand the risks of scams and make informed decisions about their transfer. However, as the information provided is standardised, we do not consider there would be additional value in requiring a further appointment where a subsequent transfer is made to a different scheme type.

55. We nevertheless acknowledge that the exemption should not apply to higher-risk transfer destinations, where an additional pause in the transfer process provides a valuable opportunity to consider the risks and avoid a rushed decision.

56. Therefore, in recognition of this, and to support the effective operation of the new SSAS amber flag, transfer requests to a SSAS will be excluded from the exemption.

Removal of the Overseas Investment Flag

57. The 2023 DWP review of the transfer regulations found that the overseas investments amber flag may be capturing some legitimate transfers unnecessarily, resulting in additional checks where no scam concerns are present. Given overseas investments are a common feature of pension schemes investment strategies, we proposed in the consultation to remove this flag, as it may not be a reliable current indicator of scams risk.

Respondent’s views

58. This change was unanimously supported. All 25 responses commenting on this issue were in favour of removing the overseas investment flag. However, a minority of responses believed while legitimate schemes may hold overseas investments, they are still a common vehicle for scams and asked this be addressed elsewhere in the regulations.

Whilst we support the removal of overseas investments as an automatic risk indicator, government may wish to consider whether transfers to arrangements established outside the UK regulatory framework continue to warrant enhanced scrutiny.

[MUFG Pension & Market Services]

Our response

59. In recognition of the broad support, we intend to proceed with our proposed measure to remove the overseas investment flag from the regulations.

60. We consider that the risks this flag was intended to address are adequately captured by other amber flags within the regulations, including those relating to unclear investment strategies. As with other areas of the regulations, we will continue to monitor evolving scam typologies to ensure appropriate safeguards remain in place.

Conclusion and next steps

61. Pensions fraud can have devastating and lasting consequences for savers, undermining the financial security they have worked hard to build for later life. At a time when the cost of living remains an important concern for households, protecting pension savings and supporting financial security in retirement is vital. The Government is determined to protect people’s pension savings from scams and fraudulent activity, and the security of pension assets remains a key priority. These measures are an important step in a wider programme of work to strengthen safeguards against fraud and help ensure savers can access the retirement income to which they are entitled.

62. Alongside strengthening protections for savers, changes such as broadening the First Condition and exempting repeated guidance appointments within the same 12-month period will improve the operation of the pensions transfer system, helping transfers proceed more smoothly and effectively.

63. We do not anticipate these changes will place significant additional resourcing pressures on the pensions industry. A thorough assessment of the associated costs and impacts will be set out in an Options Assessment, to be published in due course. By setting out these measures now, we are giving industry an early and clear view of the government’s intentions. Detailed guidance will be published alongside the introduction of the amendments to support trustees in implementing the new measures and help ensure a smooth and effective transition.