Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr L’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right Giant shall pay Mr L £2,381.40. in respect of contributions that it failed to transfer into Mr L’s SIPP and £500 for the significant distress and inconvenience which Mr L has suffered.

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

Complaint summary

Complaint against Giant

Mr L says Giant failed to:-

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Ms D’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right HFPL shall pay into Ms D’s pension arrangement with Royal London, such amount as is necessary so that her monies in that arrangement is of the same value that it would have been had £415,106 been paid into Ms D’s chosen investment on 8 December 2016, rather than £389,785 which was paid into a separate account and later transferred into her chosen pension arrangement.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Miss D’s complaint against GKN and the Trustee is upheld. GKN shall make its distribution decision afresh and pay Miss D £1,000 for serious non-financial injustice.

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

Complaint summary

Miss D has complained that GKN and/or the Trustee have failed to make a decision concerning the distribution of a lump sum death benefit in a proper manner.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

The Trustee’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right within 28 days of receiving a current payment schedule, detailing the contribution arrears total and ongoing contributions, HYMCA shall commence payment of the sums set out in the payment schedule.

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

Complaint summary

The Trustee’s complaint against HYMCA, concerns its failure to pay contributions to the Plan, as set out in the payments schedule sent to HYMCA in April 2017.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr S’ complaint is upheld and, to put matters right, SJP shall pay him: (i) redress in respect of the lost units he has identified; (ii) interest from date of surrender to date of payment; and (iii) £500 in respect of significant distress and inconvenience.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint summary

The Estate’s complaint against the Council is brought by the late Mrs N’s husband, Dr Y. Mrs N had been approved for ill health retirement benefits, however she passed away as an active member of the Scheme shortly before her employment with the Council was terminated. Consequently, a lesser death grant was paid to Dr Y. The complaint concerns the leaving date set by the Council after it awarded Mrs N ill health retirement benefits.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs D’s complaint is upheld and, to put matters right, Phoenix shall (1) make a fresh decision regarding whom death benefits should be paid to and (2) pay Mrs D £500 in respect of significant distress and inconvenience.

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

Complaint summary

Mrs D’s complaint is about Phoenix’s decision not to pay her death benefits under her late husband’s membership of the Pension and its handling of her enquiries and complaint in relation to this.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr L’s and the Additional Applicants’ complaints are upheld and to put matters right the Trustees shall comply with the directions set out in paragraphs 230 to 232 of this Determination.

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

Complaint summary

Mr L’s complaint is that the Trustees have: misrepresented the Scheme; mismanaged the funds; issued fabricated benefit statements; and that the funds that he transferred into the Scheme have been lost.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint Summary

Ms N’s complaint against Morrisons is that it refused to grant an enhanced ill health retirement pension (IHRP).

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

The complaint is upheld because the evidence does not indicate that Morrisons took the correct approach in considering Ms N’s application. To put matters right, Morrisons should reconsider its decision whether to grant Ms N an enhanced IHRP, and pay £1,000 to her for the serious non-financial injustice she has suffered.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Miss E’s complaint is upheld, and to put matters right Aviva shall pay Miss E £500 for her significant distress and inconvenience.

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

Complaint summary

Miss E’s complaint against CIC concerns its delay in applying her pension contributions to the Plan, and her complaint against Aviva is about the inconsistent information that Aviva gave her regarding the detriment caused to the Plan by that delay.