The Pension Fund of Russia denied data on the transition to a remote mode of operation until January 1, 2022 
Notification of the transition of territorial divisions of the Pension Fund of Russia (PFR) they denied it to work remotely or by appointment before January 1, 2022.
The original source of information is the PFR Board Resolution No. 239p dated July 5, 2021, published on the official Internet portal of legal information on November 23, 2021.
As it turned out, the resolution itself, referred to by a number of media outlets, is not new, but adopted back in July 2021. News items claiming that the FIU has updated the format of the work began to be printed in the publications only now, since the document was officially published only in November. Journalists misinterpreted the text of the document: the decree does not say that the FIU is switching to a remote mode of work or will receive citizens only by appointment. It clearly states that the provision of services in the premises of the foundation may be organized by appointment, but everything will depend on the epidemiological situation. Regarding the remote mode of operation, it is only said that Russians can indeed receive a number of services remotely, but it is not argued that citizens will be denied the provision of these services if they personally contact the FIU.
Information about the transition of the territorial offices of the fund to remote the operating mode and reception only by appointment was also denied by the PFR press service. “The client services of the PFR continue to work in a standard mode and receive citizens both by appointment and without it,” RIA Novosti quoted a statement.
The incorrectly interpreted PFR resolution has become widespread among regional and federal publications. Thus, such media outlets as Parlamentskaya Gazeta wrote about the alleged transition to a remote mode of operation of the FIU, which later edited its material and transmitted the information from the decree correctly, URA.RU (this publication still contains an incorrect interpretation of the FIU decree with referring to “Parlamentskaya Gazeta”), as well as a number of regional media outlets: Deita, Yakutia-Daily and others.