Our case studies
View our case studies
View our case studies
Mr M was automatically enrolled into a pension scheme by his employer but decided to opt out. His contributions were refunded, yet contributions continued to be deducted from his salary.
In 2016, the Tata Steel Group announced that it had begun a portfolio restructuring exercise and that it had started to investigate the possibility of selling Tata Steel UK (TSUK), the principal sponsoring employer of the Old British Steel Pension Scheme (OBSPS).
Mr R made a complaint of maladministration to the PPF Ombudsman in relation to the PPF Board’s interpretation of the relevant legislation regarding the payment of survivors’ benefits in the event of his death.
Mrs S’ husband, was a member of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme 2005. Although he had made her the beneficiary of his will; he had not updated his death benefit nomination form which listed his friend as the sole beneficiary.
Mr R was a deferred member of the Simons Group Pension Scheme. Mr R had received a diagnosis of terminal cancer and had contacted the Scheme administrators to discuss his options.
Mrs T’s late husband took out a personal pension plan (the Plan) with Zurich and nominated Mrs T to receive the benefits payable upon his death. Years later, Mrs Y, a relative of Mr T, wrote to Zurich on his behalf to notify it that Mr T had decided to change his nominated beneficiary to her.
In the lead up to his retirement Mr M obtained several different benefit illustrations from his pension scheme. Unfortunately, he misinterpreted them, not realising that because of contracting-out requirements, by electing to draw his pension benefits at 64 he would lose his option to take the tax-free lump sum on retirement.
Miss H was made redundant, but before this, she had asked her employer if pension contributions would continue to be paid until her 65th birthday. They confirmed before, and after, Miss H had left service that this would happen.
Ms N was a member of the Tesla Motors Limited Pension Scheme. Ms N raised a complaint because her employer had failed to pay employee and employer contributions into the Scheme.
Ms R is a member of a small self-administered pension scheme. In 2014, Ms R transferred the benefits she had in a previous employer’s pension scheme to the SSAS. Ms R took a tax-free cash sum from the transfer amount and invested the remainder in Bitcoins.
Mr D was a member of the Shell Contributory Pension Fund. In 2016, Mr D began exploring how the trustee of the Fund was measuring and managing the potential risk of climate change. Mr D was given the opportunity to meet with the trustee, but the meeting did not eradicate his concerns.
Mr N had appealed the decision of the Board of the PPF to reduce his FAS benefits going forward. He also believed that some elements of his pension benefits were omitted from the FAS calculations and as a result, his asset share was affected.