By Simon Swallow, M.Com
Published 24 August 2026 | Last reviewed 24 August 2026
Proposed UK pension reforms could expose which workplace pension schemes process transfers efficiently—and which leave members waiting with long UK pension transfer delays.
QROPS NZ analysis of more than 4,000 completed transfers shows that UK-to-New Zealand pension transfer times have increased substantially. However, the new framework will measure only part of the cross-border transfer journey.
What will the Value for Money framework show?
The proposed Value for Money framework would require workplace defined contribution pension schemes to publish comparable information covering:
- investment performance;
- costs and charges;
- record-keeping accuracy;
- complaints; and
- the speed of important transactions, including pension transfers.
For transfers, schemes would report their average processing time and the percentage completed within bands ranging from 1–3 days to more than 50 days.
Poor service could downgrade a scheme’s provisional Value for Money assessment, even where its investment performance and charges appear competitive.
Read the UK Value for Money consultation.
UK pension transfer delays have increased sharply
QROPS NZ analysed more than 4,000 completed UK pension transfers for which completed forms were sent between 2011 and 2025.
Transfer time was measured from the date the forms were sent to the UK pension provider until the funds were received by the New Zealand scheme.
| Forms sent | Median transfer time | Transfers taking over 100 days |
|---|---|---|
| 2011–2014 | 56 days | 16% |
| 2015–2020 | 59.5 days | 26% |
| 2021–2025 | 91 days | 47% |
The median increased by more than 50% between the second and third periods. During 2021–2025, one quarter of completed transfers took more than 150 days.
This is not simply a small number of exceptional cases: almost half the transfers in the latest complete period took more than 100 days.
UK-to-New Zealand pension transfer times
UK-to-New Zealand pension transfer times
Annual median and 75th-percentile time from completed forms being sent to funds being received.
Annual median and 75th-percentile time from forms being sent to funds being received.
Source: QROPS NZ transfer records. Years represent the date completed forms were sent. Only completed transfers are included; incomplete 2026 data has been excluded.
Which providers were faster?
Provider medians varied considerably. For providers with a reasonable number of completed transfers between 2018 and 2025, the recorded medians were:
| UK provider | Median transfer time |
| Legal & General | 46 days |
| AEGON | 49 days |
| Standard Life | 53 days |
| Aviva | 56 days |
| Royal London | 63 days |
| ReAssure | 70 days |
| Scottish Widows | 80.5 days |
These figures are not a definitive provider league table. Different types of UK pension can require different checks, while safeguarded benefits, incomplete information and regulatory referrals can extend individual cases.
Nevertheless, the size of the differences suggests that provider administration is an important part of the transfer-time story.
The reforms will not measure the whole journey
The proposed Value for Money transfer clock starts when a formal transfer request reaches the UK scheme. It stops when the member’s details and transfer value have been sent to the receiving scheme.
It may therefore exclude:
- time spent obtaining transfer forms;
- delays before the UK provider accepts a request as complete;
- international payment and reconciliation time; and
- processing by the receiving New Zealand scheme.
The proposed figures will not be directly comparable with the QROPS NZ research because our analysis continues until the funds are received in New Zealand.
This distinction matters. The new data should expose delays within UK schemes, but it will not show the complete UK-to-New Zealand pension transfer process.
See our earlier research into increasing UK pension transfer times.
Could the reforms improve pension administration?
That is one of their expected consequences.
Consistent public data would allow regulators, employers and schemes to compare administration more objectively. Poor service metrics could reduce a scheme’s rating and create pressure to improve systems, records and transfer processing.
Under the proposals, the full consequences would apply from 2029. Amber-rated arrangements could require improvement plans, while red-rated arrangements could face action plans and, where appropriate and in members’ interests, the transfer of members to better-value arrangements.
The framework does not guarantee that every pension transfer will become faster. Legitimate safeguards and complex benefits will still require careful checks. It should, however, make persistently poor administration harder to hide.
New Zealand schemes still have separate obligations
New Zealand Qualifying Recognised Overseas Pension Schemes must maintain detailed records for each member’s transferred UK pension funds.
These records need to identify UK tax-relieved funds, relevant or ring-fenced transfer funds, the date each transfer was received and information required for any later transfer or UK tax reporting.
Where a subsequent transfer contains money derived from several original UK transfers, the components may need to be identified and reported separately.
See HMRC’s QROPS record-keeping requirements.
Better information and administration from UK providers could make this process easier. However, the Value for Money framework will not assess the receiving New Zealand scheme or measure how long that scheme takes to complete its work.
Greater transparency, but not the complete picture
The proposed framework should reveal more about how efficiently UK workplace pension schemes operate.
Our analysis of more than 4,000 completed transfers shows why that scrutiny is needed: median transfer times have risen, prolonged delays have become much more common and provider experience varies materially.
The new figures should make UK administration more accountable. They will not determine whether transferring a pension is appropriate or explain the complete UK-to-New Zealand transfer journey.
The framework remains under consultation, so its final requirements may change.
About the author
Simon Swallow, M.Com, is a Director of Charter Square Services and Head of its Wellington office. He founded Charter Square in London in 2000 and specialises in the legislation and administration surrounding UK pension transfers to New Zealand.
This article provides general information and is not personalised financial, tax or legal advice.
