Delays implementing a Pension Sharing Order – The case study of Mr H
Mr H complained about both Aon and Barnett Waddingham for the delay implementing his pension sharing order (PSO) which meant the value of his pension had fallen.
The PSO was made in 2009. In February 2017, Mr H received paperwork from Aon about his potential retirement. He asked about the PSO and was told it was never implemented.
In May 2017, Mr H was provided with a cash equivalent transfer value (CETV), but because the PSO had not been implemented, it was overstated. In August 2017, the scheme’s administration was transferred to Barnett Waddingham. In December 2017, Mr H was provided with a corrected CETV.
Mr H also wanted the charges made for implementing the order, reimbursed.
The Ombudsman partly upheld the complaint.
He agreed with the adjudicator’s recommendation that £2,000 be awarded for non-financial injustice. He directed Aon to carry out a loss assessment to see if Mr H would have secured additional units if the transfer had been completed earlier, and to redress it if Mr H has suffered a loss. The fees were not refundable.
Related determinations
Related case studies
Post retirement increases – The case study of Mr P
This complaint concerns the annual increases that have been applied to Mr P’s pension.
Pension liberation transfer - The case study of Mr S
Mr S complained that the Ministry of Defence (MoD) allowed him to transfer from the Armed Forces Pension Scheme (AFPS) to the Capita Oak Pension Scheme (the Receiving Scheme).