Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint Summary

Mr N complains that Mr Paterson has not adhered to the settlement agreed last year, when Mr N brought his original complaint to this Office.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

Mr N’s complaint is upheld, because Mr Paterson has not met the terms of an agreed settlement.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr D’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right SYP shall reconsider its decision not to pay Mr D’s deferred benefits early on the grounds of ill health.

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

Complaint summary

Mr D has complained that his application for the early payment of his deferred benefits on the grounds of ill health has not been considered properly.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs L’s complaint is upheld and, to put matters right, Aviva shall pay Mrs L £500 for the significant distress and inconvenience she has suffered.

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

Complaint summary

Mrs L complains about the inconsistent information she has received regarding the date her contributions were paid to Aviva and subsequently invested. She also questions the charges that have been applied for administering her pension.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint Summary

Mr S’s complaint about SL, the SIPP administrator, is that it caused a delay in the transfer of his benefits under the SIPP to his occupational pension; and, this caused him a loss of investment growth and significant distress and inconvenience

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld because: SL took too long to transfer his benefits.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

This complaint against Green Light Packaging Limited is upheld. To put matters right the Trustee will cease to block the transfer of the Applicants’ benefits from the Scheme, and the Trustee will pay £1,000 to each of the Applicants in recognition of the serious distress and inconvenience it has caused them

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

Complaint summary

The Trustee will not agree to the Applicants’ requests to transfer their benefits out of Scheme.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Ms S’ complaint is upheld and to put matters right the Council shall consider again Ms S’ 2015 application for ill health retirement and pay Ms S £500 for the significant distress and inconvenience caused.

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

Complaint summary

Ms S was awarded the early release of her deferred pension on grounds of ill health from 12 March 2018. She believes she should have been made the award when she first applied in April 2015.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint Summary

Mr D has complained that Kier failed to calculate interest payable as a result of the late payment of his LGPS pension in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld against Middlesbrough because it is responsible for ensuring that Mr D receives the benefits he is entitled to under the LGPS, including any interest due.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr K’s complaint is upheld and, to put matters right, Interactive shall (1) waive or reimburse any costs associated with selling investments in the SIPP, (2) credit the disputed contribution back to the employer’s bank account, (3) credit to the same account, a sum equal to the interest the disputed contribution would have earned had it been cancelled and returned, and (4) pay Mr K £500 in respect of the significant distress and inconvenience this matter has caused.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr N’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right KP shall reconsider Mr N’s application.

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

Complaint summary

Mr N’s complaint against KP concerns its decision to refuse to award him an injury benefit entitlement.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr N’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right Mr Garner should pay the transfer value, mitigate any investment losses and pay Mr N £500 to recognise his significant distress and inconvenience.

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

Complaint summary

Mr N is complaining that Mr Garner and Liddell Dunbar have delayed the transfer of his benefits out of the Scheme.