
Takeaway:
The proportion of UK adults projected to fall below a minimum retirement lifestyle has improved from 39% to 31%, but 12.2 million people are still on track for pension poverty. The improvement is driven more by lower cost assumptions than by stronger savings behaviour.
But:
Much of the improvement is due to lower energy costs reducing the cost of a “minimum” lifestyle, not because people are saving more.
Those without pensions (a key at‑risk group) now show:
This reduces projected housing costs and nudges some above the minimum threshold.
Scottish Widows modelled the impact of raising contributions:
Policy implication:
Extending auto‑enrolment and increasing minimum contributions remain the single biggest levers for improving retirement outcomes.
Broad averages hide significant variation:
Pension poverty ranges 28–34% across most of the UK.
Scottish Widows emphasises the need to consider:
Key levers:
Volatile energy prices materially change:
Renting in retirement significantly increases the risk of falling below minimum living standards.
31% of UK adults — around 12.2 million people — are on track for a retirement below the minimum living standard.
While this is an improvement on last year, the change is driven largely by lower energy costs rather than stronger savings behaviour.
Auto‑enrolment reform, higher contribution rates, and better support for part‑time, self‑employed, and vulnerable workers remain critical to improving long‑term outcomes.
| Driver | 2025 Position | 2026 Position | Direction of Change | Notes / Interpretation |
| % of UK adults below minimum retirement standard | 39% (≈15.3m) | 31% (≈12.2m) | Improved | 8‑point improvement, but largely cost‑driven rather than savings‑driven. |
| Cost of “minimum” lifestyle (RLS) | Higher due to elevated energy costs | Lower due to temporary fall in energy prices | Improved (artificially) | Accounts for ~50% of the improvement; may reverse as energy prices rise again. |
| Median projected household retirement income | £25.7k | £25.9k | Slight improvement | Driven by modest increases in pay, savings, and home‑ownership expectations among non‑pension savers. |
| Savings behaviour among non‑pension savers | Lower pay, lower savings, more renting | Slightly higher pay, higher savings, more expected home ownership | Improved | This group explains the other ~50% of the improvement. |
| Auto‑enrolment coverage | AE thresholds exclude many part‑time and low‑income workers | No structural change | No change | AE remains the biggest structural gap; self‑employed still excluded. |
| Impact of increasing contributions (modelled) | 8% default contributions | Raising to 12% would add ~£40k to pots | Potential improvement | Would reduce pension poverty among DC savers from 32% → 13%. |
| Regional variation | Pension poverty 28–40% depending on region | Similar pattern; SE lowest (25%), London highest (38%) | Mixed | London remains most polarised: high incomes but high housing costs. |
| Ethnic disparities | Known disparities but less granular reporting | Clearer variation: Indian/Pakistani groups strongest; Black/Mixed groups weakest | Worsening clarity, not necessarily outcomes | Pension participation and home ownership explain most differences. |
| Employment type | FT workers least at risk; PT and self‑employed more exposed | Same pattern; >1 in 3 PT/self‑employed below minimum | No change | Structural AE gaps continue to drive inequality. |
| Health & vulnerability | Vulnerable groups already at higher risk | 44% of vulnerable adults below minimum; 50% with limiting health conditions | Worsening | Healthy life expectancy at lowest recorded level; higher future care costs expected. |