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.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs I’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right Southwark Council shall pay Mrs I the equivalent of seven and a half months of pension for the lack of pension payments between 16 October 2016 and 1 June 2017; together with interest at the base bank rate for the time being quoted by the Bank of England for the period from 16 October 2016 to the date of payment inclusive; and £3,000 for the exceptional distress and inconvenience she has experienced.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint Summary

Mr R has complained that Mr Garner and Liddell Dunbar have delayed the transfer of his pension benefits in the Scheme and that the transfer has not been made. Mr R has also claimed consequential losses as a result of the delay.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs T’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right the Trust shall reconsider Mrs T’s application for an ill health retirement pension (IHRP). The Trust shall also pay Mrs T £1000 for the serious distress and inconvenience caused.

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

Complaint summary

Mrs T’s complaint against the Trust is that she believes she should have been awarded Tier 1 and not Tier 2 benefits.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Miss S’ complaint is upheld and to put matters right, The Sunday Independent Limited shall backdate Miss S’ pension for the period in question. Further, The Sunday Independent Limited will pay Miss S £500 in recognition of the significant distress and inconvenience caused to her by its maladministration.

Complaint summary

Miss S has complained that The Sunday Independent Limited failed to direct pension contributions into the Plan.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

The complaint should be upheld against NHS PSL because of NHS PSL’s maladministration in failing to expedite Mrs S’ application for an ill-health retirement pension, preventing that application from being received by the Secretary of State before 1 April 2015 (the Deadline).

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Ms D’s complaint against IFAP is upheld.

To put matters right, IFAP has a joint and several liability, with Halebarns Financial Planning Ltd (HFPL), (see previous Determination PO-20093) to pay into Ms D’s pension arrangement with Royal London, such amount as is necessary so that her monies in that arrangement are of the same value had £415,106 been paid into Ms D’s chosen investment on 8 December 2016.