Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs L’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right the Council shall consider whether Mrs L satisfied the criteria for Tier 2 benefits as at June 2014 and that this whole matter has caused Mrs L significant distress and inconvenience, which warrants a payment to Mrs L by the Council of £800.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs S’s complaint is upheld, and to put matters right Phoenix Life should pay her £1,000, including £500 for her distress and inconvenience.

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

Complaint summary

Mrs S’s complaint against Phoenix, the scheme administrator, is that it unreasonably delayed a transfer of her funds to another provider.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs R’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right MyCSP should, with Cabinet Office guidance, put a suitable procedure in place and use that to assess Mrs R’s circumstances to see whether she meets the criteria for living together as a married couple.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr S’s complaint is upheld, and to put matters right Phoenix Life should pay him £1,000, including £500 for his distress and inconvenience.

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

Complaint summary

Mr S’s complaint against Phoenix, the scheme administrator, is that it unreasonably delayed a transfer of his funds to another provider.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint summary

Mr E’s complaint is that LBG has not provided him with a preserved pension following the transfer of his contract of employment to TSB under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) regulations (TUPE). He says that he was assured he would receive membership of the Scheme but ultimately his contributions were returned, with the consequence that he has lost his employer contributions for a little under three months.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint Summary

Mr A’s complaint concerns Mr Farren’s failure to respond to his enquiries about the status and security of his Scheme funds, leaving him unable to plan for his future and exercise his transfer rights.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs G’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right TP shall return the reclaimed overpayment with interest to Mrs G

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

Complaint summary

Mrs G’s complaint is that TP are unfairly claiming back an overpayment of ill health retirement pension.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint Summary

Mr X’s complaint concerns Mr Farren’s failure to respond to his enquiries about the status and security of his Scheme funds, leaving him unable to plan for his future and exercise his transfer rights.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr N’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right Hornbuckle shall pay Mr N £500 for distress and inconvenience caused and pay into the SIPP’s bank account  £1,875.65 plus reimburse its own charges that may have been claimed in respect of processing Mr N’s transfer request.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs N’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right Hornbuckle should pay Mrs N £500 for distress and inconvenience caused and pay into the SIPP’s bank account £1,676.65 plus reimburse any of its own charges that may have been claimed in respect of processing Mrs N’s transfer request.

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