Downsizer,
Yes - exactly those people. Last year I met someone in this situation.
JTO,
AFPS is getting interesting, sort of. When appointed, all trustees are reminded that they must always act in the best interests of beneficiaries. The wording is; "Your first duty must be to the scheme beneficiaries, and you must always act in their best interests. A beneficiary is anyone who is entitled to, or who might receive, a benefit from the scheme, now or in the future."
From April 2015, things change anyway. The pensions regulator becomes responsible for standards of AFPS governance and administration, as well as a clutch of other public sector pensions (via the Public Service Pensions Act 2013 which received Royal Assent in April). This is why for instance, everyone will get an annual pension statement from next year and why any potential "poor governance, inadequate controls resulting in deficient administration, or slow or inappropriate decision-making practices" with AFPS service delivery are going to raise external regulatory eyebrows.
I think we're on the al 17 or so of the new guidance to the trustees - and the guidance is voluminous. But, of note to what this thread refers to, para 135 stipulates:
"
Schemes should ensure that member records are reconciled with information held by the employer, for example postal or electronic address changes and new starters. Schemes should also ensure that the numbers of scheme members is as expected based on the number of leavers and joiners since the last reconciliation. Schemes should be able to determine those members who are approaching retirement, those who are active members and those who are deferred members."
When I met the old boy in Oakham referred to above, it made me wonder how many others like him were in his situation. Paras 196 and 197 specifically refer;
"
Schemes should attempt to make contact with their scheme members and where contact is not possible, schemes should consider carrying out a tracing exercise to locate the member and ensure that their member data is up-to-date.
For the provision of information, a member’s postal address may be their last known home address or their place of work."
Now, I don't know what has been done to harvest all these missing members (the rational for this thread).. I would think that this time of year would have been the perfect time to get some of those 14, 000 or so missing members back on the books. The AFPS landscape is going to be flipped on its head and the trustees are going to become more 'professional' and more accountable. From a professional perspective, it's a fascinating time (yeah yeah.. zzz!).
Public Service Pensions Act 2013