Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr N’s complaint against James Hay 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, James Hay shall pay £1,064.25 into Mr N’s self-invested personal pension (SIPP) bank account.

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

Complaint summary

Mr N complains that James Hay has failed to collect the rent due in relation to a property held in his SIPP.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs R’s complaint against Equiniti and NHS BSA 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 BSA shall pay Mrs R compensation of £500 for the significant distress and inconvenience caused by their error.

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

Complaint summary

Mrs R’s complaint is that NHS BSA is requesting the repayment of a pension that was overpaid to her.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr R’s complaint against BCC and WCC 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) BCC shall pay Mr R £1,000 and WCC shall pay Mr R £500 for distress and inconvenience caused.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr Y’s complaint against Equiniti, the Bank and the Trustees is partly upheld. To put matters right, within 21 days, Equiniti and the Bank should both pay Mr Y £500, making a total of £1,000 to compensate for the significant distress and inconvenience he has suffered.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs N’s complaint against CSP is partly upheld, but there is a part of the complaint I do not agree with. To put matters right CSP should write off any outstanding overpayment and refund the amount it has already recouped, with interest. CSP should also pay Mrs N compensation. However, I do not believe that CSP should pay Mrs N the incorrect – and higher – pension benefits going forward.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I partly agree with Mrs T’s complaint against the Pensions Trust, but there is a part of the complaint I do not agree with. To put matters right (for the part that is upheld) the Pensions Trust should pay Mrs T £500 for the distress and inconvenience she has suffered.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr N’s complaint against Teachers’ Pension is partly upheld but I do not consider any further action on the part of Teachers’ Pensions to be necessary.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr S’s complaint against LV= 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, LV= should arrange to pay Mr S £500 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to him by the maladministration identified.

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

Complaint summary

Mr S contends that the administration charges which the current SIPP administrator LV= has levied are unfair because:

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr D’s complaint against the Trust is partly upheld, but there is a part of the complaint I do not agree with.

In my opinion, the Trust are responsible for failing to declare Mr D’s pensionable pay correctly to the Scheme. However, because Mr D had been made aware of their error by the Scheme, I do not consider he can show that he reasonably relied upon the accuracy of the information which the Trust provided when he decided to retire.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr E’s complaint against USS Ltd and the University, 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), USS Ltd shall review its 2008 decision not to award Mr E total incapacity benefits. In addition, it shall pay Mr E £750 for distress and inconvenience.

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