Skip to content
allanninal.dev/build
Collaborate

Part 4 of 7 · Pension enrolment assessor series ~5 min read

When a message says leave the pension

Most of what staff write about the pension is a question, and most questions have a short true answer. A few messages are somebody saying they want out, and those are the ones where an ordinary helpful reply — here is the form, it only takes a minute — is precisely what the employer is not allowed to do.

Key takeaways

  • The model classifies intent. Dates decide whether leaving is an opt-out or ceasing membership.
  • The opt-out notice comes from the scheme. The employer never supplies or fills one in.
  • A notice to opt in or join must be in writing, signed or personally submitted.
  • Every reply is a fixed, reviewed template. The model writes nothing a worker reads.
  • Anything uncertain goes to a person, never to the most likely route.

Four kinds of message, one fixed route each

A staff message about the pension classified and routedA vertical chain inside an AWS account container, entered from a box on the left labelled A message, from an email, a form or a note passed on. Wants to leave, meaning opt out, stop it or does not want it, with a side exit reading yes: The scheme, its own route out and nothing more. Wants to join, meaning opt in or join if not enrolled, with a side exit reading yes: Check notice, signed or marked personally sent. Change what is paid, meaning more, less or salary sacrifice, with a side exit reading yes: A person, because it is a pay change and not a reply. The final step is A question, answered with a fixed answer or by a person. A note says the model only picks the box, code applies the dates and rules, and every reply is an approved template.AWS ACCOUNTA messageemail, form, or anote passed onWants to leave?opt out, stop it,does not want itThe schemeits own routeout, nothing moreyesWants to join?opt in, or join ifnot enrolledCheck noticesigned, or markedpersonally sentyesChange what is paid?more, less, orsalary sacrificeA persona pay change,not a replyyesA questiona fixed answer,or a personThe model only picks the box. Code applies the dates and rules; every reply is an approved template.
Fig 1. Three questions and a default. The order matters: a message that mixes a question with wanting to leave is treated as wanting to leave.
  • App integration
  • Machine learning
  • Networking
  • Security & identity
  • Front-end & mobile
  • People

Why the employer cannot simply help

The opt-out notice comes from the pension scheme, not from the employer, and that is by design. Leaving is something the worker arranges through the scheme, freely, and the employer must not encourage or induce anybody to opt out. The Regulator’s guidance puts it plainly: the decision must be taken by the worker without influence from the employer.

An ordinary reply from a busy manager can fail that in ways that look harmless. Attaching a form fails it, because the employer has supplied the notice. No problem, it’s quick reads as encouragement. Most people on your hours don’t bother is an inducement by any reading. The safe reply is short and slightly unsatisfying: leaving is done through the scheme, here is how to contact it, and the employer cannot advise on whether to stay in.

So the system never composes that reply. The model classifies the message and extracts a handful of fields; the reply is a template written once, checked once, and sent unchanged. A model asked to be kind to somebody who wants to leave will be kind in exactly the wrong direction.

Leaving is one intent and two processes

A worker who wants out within one month of becoming an active member, or of receiving their enrolment letter if that came later, is opting out, and a valid opt-out entitles them to a full refund of their contributions. The same worker writing the same words six months later is ceasing active membership, and whether anything comes back then depends on the scheme’s rules.

The model is not asked which of those it is, because the model does not know the dates and should not be trusted with them if it did. It returns wants to leave. Code looks up the enrolment record, works out whether the opt-out period is still open, and picks between two templates. Both of them point at the scheme.

A year of messages

Pension messages in one year grouped by what the worker wantedFour vertical bars showing messages about the pension in one year, grouped by what the worker wanted. Asking a question accounts for six hundred and four. Wanting to leave accounts for one hundred and thirty-one. Changing what is paid accounts for seventy-seven. Wanting to join accounts for fifty-eight. A note says one hundred and eighteen of the one hundred and thirty-one leaving messages came within six weeks of an enrolment letter, so the reply should be settled before the letters go out.0200400600800~604Asking~131Wants to leave~77Change pay~58Wants to joinMessages about the pension in one year, by what the worker wanted118 of the 131 leaving messages came within six weeks of an enrolment letter. Settle the reply first.
Fig 2. 870 messages in a year, from the 212 people on the payroll and the ones who passed through it. Seven in ten were questions, and that is where reading them saves the most time.

Joining has its own paperwork

A worker who is not enrolled can ask to be: a non-eligible jobholder by opting in, with employer contributions, and an entitled worker by asking to join. Both requests have a form requirement. The notice has to be in writing and signed or, if it is sent electronically, include a statement that the worker personally submitted it.

That makes the model’s second job extraction rather than judgement. Is there a signature, or a sentence to the effect of I confirm I personally submitted this notice? If so, the message is a notice and the system opens a duty from the day it was received. If not, the worker gets a template explaining what a valid notice needs, and nothing is started from a message that is not yet one.

What the model is and is not asked

  • Asked: which of the four kinds this is, allowing more than one.
  • Asked: whether a signature or personal-submission statement is present.
  • Asked: which worker sent it, where the sender is not already known.
  • Not asked: whether the opt-out period is open. That is dates, in code.
  • Not asked: to write a reply, summarise the scheme or explain the pension.
  • Not asked: to settle anything it is unsure of. That goes to a person.

When it is unsure

A message like can I stop this for a few months while money is tight is a worker wanting to leave, possibly asking whether they can come back, and possibly asking about paying less, which has consequences of its own. The model will not classify that cleanly and should not be made to try.

So mixed or uncertain messages go to a named person with the classification attached and the confidence visible, and the default route for anything that mentions leaving at all is the scheme’s process. The cost of sending a question down that route is a slightly redundant reply. The cost of the alternative is an employer that talked somebody out of their pension.

The next post follows the messages that did become opt-outs: the refund that is owed, the window that decides it, and the three-year cycle that brings everybody who left back to the start.

All posts