Complaint Summary

Mr Colin Lloyd, Ms Palmer and his two sons complain that due to delays on the part of Fidelity in effecting “in specie” transfers of their SIPP investments to Charles Stanley between November 2013 and July 2014 they have been unable to trade during the period in question and consequently have each suffered a financial loss.

Mr Colin Lloyd and Ms Palmer also contend that they have suffered further financial loss through payment of higher SIPP charges to Fidelity during the protracted transfer process.

Complaint summary

Mr Beveridge complains that following a TUPE transfer on 1 August 2010, Williams Lea have not made a 5% pension contribution into the Plan on his behalf. He understood that contributions from Williams Lea would be paid into the Plan, in addition to a 15% pension allowance which was paid to him as a salary enhancement.

Mr Beveridge also complains that in order to meet auto-enrolment requirements Williams Lea are taking the 1% mandatory employer contribution from the 15% pension allowance and adding it to the Plan.

Complaint summary

Mrs Mather has complained that TP provided her with incorrect benefit quotations, due to wrongly including a period of service for which she had previously received a refund of contributions. She is seeking either substantial compensation for the decisions she made in reliance upon the incorrect information, or the level of benefits originally quoted to her.

 Subject

In 1996 Mr Cunningham began making additional contributions from his salary to purchase nine additional years in the Plan. In 2000 he transferred to another employer in the group without a break in pensionable service. However, when his payroll record was set up at his new employer they did not arrange for the deduction of the additional service contributions.

Complaint summary

Dr Baldwin has complained that he was provided with incorrect information and that he relied on the misinformation when deciding to retire. Had he known his actual pension entitlement was lower than stated, he would have continued to work and would not have triggered his pension until August 2013.

He says that his claim is for negligence and negligent misrepresentation.

He is seeking compensation for loss of income, loss of pension entitlement and for the distress and inconvenience caused by the maladministration in this matter.

Complaint summary

Ms P Lettman has complained about the death benefits payable from the LGPS in respect of her late son, Mr K R Lettman, being subject to a 40% tax charge as an unauthorised payment, due to not settling the death benefit within two years.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld against LBHF and to a lesser extent LPFA because:

Complaint summary

Mrs K has complained that the method by which TP has calculated her retirement benefits has resulted in a pension and lump sum lower than she had planned and was expecting.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

The complaint is upheld against DfE and TP because Mrs K was given misleading information when she asked about the calculation of her pension which she relied on to her detriment. Mrs K was also misinformed about the reason for the change in the calculations which led to a delay in finalising her complaint.

Complaint summary

Ms V’s complaint is about AJ Bell’s decision not to award her any death benefits under their discretionary powers in respect of Mr Philip Scott’s Self Invested Personal Pension (SIPP).

Summary of the Ombudsman’s determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld against AJ Bell because their decision not to exercise their discretion in Ms V’s favour was flawed.

Ombudsman Determination

Outcome

Mrs N’s complaint is upheld, and to put matters right Hargreaves Lansdown should review again its decision to pay all the lump sum death benefits to Miss A and none to Mrs N.

My reasons for reaching this decision are explained in more detail below.

Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

Mr Y’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right Friends Life should pay Mr Y financial compensation for the loss he has suffered and the distress and inconvenience caused by its error.

My reasons for reaching this view are explained in more detail below.

Complaint summary

Mr Y’s complaint is summarised as follows: