Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr Y’s complaint is upheld against FPOL. To put matters right it will contact Prudential to obtain a calculation of the difference in the value of the Plan, had Mr Y’s funds been invested as he requested. FPOL are then to pay the difference into Mr Y’s new plan (as the Plan with Prudential is now closed) in accordance with my directions set out in paragraphs 26 and 27 of this determination.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr T’s complaint is upheld, but only in respect of the significant distress and inconvenience caused to him by TP’s admitted failings in this case. To put matters right TP should pay Mr T £750 compensation.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr S’ complaint is upheld and to put matters right the Service shall consider wholly afresh whether Mr S is entitled to an injury award and pay Mr S £500 for the significant distress and inconvenience caused.

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

Complaint summary

Mr S’ complaint is that he has been refused an injury award.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs N’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right NHSBSA should reconsider whether her condition as a result of an incident in 2005 (the Incident) was wholly or mainly due to her NHS employment and, if so, whether she has suffered a permanent loss of earning ability (PLOEA) of more than 10%.

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 Phoenix Life shall pay Mr N compensation for any financial loss he has suffered.

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

Complaint summary

Mr N’s complaint against Phoenix Life is about its failure to provide him with retirement options in advance of his selected retirement date (SRD).

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs D’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right TP should pay her £500 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience they have caused her.

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 Abbey Life should pay Mr N:

• £1,500 in recognition of the non-financial loss that has been suffered; and
• an amount to recognise that Mr N changed his position based on the incorrect figures he was provided with.

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

Complaint summary

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr N’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right Fast Pensions should provide a full written response to Mr N’s questions regarding his funds in the Plan, including the current value; and assist him in exercising his statutory rights.  Fast Pensions should also pay Mr N, £1,000, to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to him by their maladministration. 

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Miss H’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right Fast Pensions should respond to Miss H’s questions regarding the status and value of her pension fund, and assist her in exercising her statutory right to a transfer.  Fast Pensions should also pay Miss H, £1,000, to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to her by their maladministration.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr T’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right Fast Pensions should provide a full written response to Mr T’s questions regarding the funds in the Policy, including the current value, and to assist him in exercising his statutory right to a transfer.  Fast Pensions should also pay Mr T £1,000, to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to him by their maladministration.

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