Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr E’s complaint against LCC is partly upheld, but there is a part of the complaint I do not agree with. To put matters right (for the part that is upheld) LCC should pay Mr E £750 in recognition of the non-financial loss he has suffered.

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

Complaint summary

Mr E is complaining that LCC:

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr S’ complaint against NOW: Pensions is partly upheld, but there is a part of the complaint I do not agree with. To put matters right (for the part that is upheld) NOW: Pensions should pay Mr S £500 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to him and pay Mr S £34.40 for the administration fees and investment loss it has subsequently offered to pay him.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs S’ complaint against NHS Pensions is partly upheld, but there is a part of the complaint I do not agree with. To put matters right (for the part that is upheld) NHS Pensions should adjust the amount of overpayment they are seeking to recover to allow for a change of position defence. They should also allow Mrs S to submit a hardship claim in respect of the remaining overpayment.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Dr S complaint against the Trustee is partly upheld, but there is a part of the complaint I do not agree with. To put matters right (for the part that is upheld) the Trustee should increase the maladministration compensation to £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr S’ complaint against TP is partly upheld, but there is a part of the complaint I do not agree with. To put matters right (for the part that is upheld), TP should pay Mr S £1,000 for the significant distress and inconvenience caused by its maladministration.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs D’s complaint against Mr Cliff, but not against AJ Bell, is upheld. No further action is required by AJ Bell. However, to put matters right Mr Cliff should pay Mrs D interest on the payments already made to her and also pay her the balance of the death benefit, plus interest. In addition, he should pay her compensation of £500 for the significant non-financial injustice she has suffered.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs N’s complaint against TVP is partly upheld, but there is a part of the complaint I do not agree with.  To put matters right (for the part that is upheld) TVP should pay £1,000 to Mrs N.

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

Complaint summary

Mrs N complains that TVP, her employer, misled her about her ill health retirement (IHR) rights under the Scheme, and she relied on it to her detriment.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs S’s complaint against Dossor and Phoenix Life is partly upheld, but there is a part of the complaint I do not agree with. To put matters right for the part that is upheld:

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Dr R’s complaint against Teachers’ Pensions is partly upheld, but there is a part of the complaint I do not agree with.  To put matters right (for the part that is upheld) Teachers’ Pensions should pay Dr R £500 as compensation for the distress and inconvenience he has experienced.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint summary

Mr N’s complaint is summarised as follows:

HM told him he would receive a return of GBP £6,238.00 from his investment in the “USD Absolute Macro Diversified Fund” (Absolute Fund). When his funds were disinvested, he actually received an uncrystallised funds pension lump sum (UFPLS) of GBP £3,376.75. He believes that HM’s explanation of this difference is inadequate and he is entitled to the shortfall.