Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

Mr L’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right the Committee should pay Mr L £750 for distress and inconvenience caused plus simple interest on the incapacity benefits that would have been payable in June 2014.

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

Ombudsman’s determination and reasons

Miss A’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right MoJ should consider the matter again and provide Miss A with a detailed explanation regarding her application for  early release of her deferred pension on grounds of compassion. Further in recognition of the distress and inconvenience Miss A has experienced, MoJ will pay her compensation of £500.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr Y’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right Littlebrook should pay £4,201.36 into the pension plan.

Littlebrook should also pay £1000 to Mr Y as compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.

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

Complaint Summary

Mrs R has complained that her application for the early payment of her deferred benefits on the grounds of ill health has been declined.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld against Trafford because they failed to consider Mrs R’s application for the early payment of her deferred benefits in a proper manner.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr N’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right T&M should pay compensation to Mr N.

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

Complaint summary

Mr N has complained that T&M delayed in processing a disinvestment of his pension funds and in passing on the resulting proceeds for re-investment, causing him financial loss.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr S’ complaint is upheld and to put matters right Veterans UK should reconsider Mr S’ 2012 application.

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

Complaint summary

Mr S’ complaint is that he has been refused the early payment of his preserved pension on ill health grounds.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr Y’s complaint is upheld. To put matters right Aegon should calculate the notional values of Mr Y’s funds, in accordance with the directions at the end of this Determination, and pay the difference between these values and the actual values paid.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr N’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right Mattioli Woods plc should pay redress to Mr N as directed.

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

Complaint summary

Mr N has complained that Mattioli Woods failed to ensure that three pieces of land he intended to purchase through the SIPP were not transferred despite the fact that they have applied annual charges and valuations of the land.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs N’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right SPPA should pay redress to her as set out in my directions below.

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

Complaint summary

Mrs N has complained that SPPA provided incorrect information to Old Mutual Wealth, when she transferred her benefits, which resulted in a delay in the investment of her funds and a loss of £5,685.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs L’s complaint is upheld against the Council. To put matters right the Council should reconsider Mrs L for ill health retirement at the date her employment ended in November 2012 and pay her £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused.

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

Complaint summary

Mrs L’s complaint is that she has been refused ill health retirement.