Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr R’s complaint against the LPFA is partly upheld, but there is a part of the complaint that I do not agree with. To put matters right for the part that is upheld the LPFA shall pay Mr R £1,000.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs L’s complaint is partially upheld against SPF, the administrators of the Scheme, but not against SPPA. To put matters right, SPF should pay £2,000 compensation to Mrs L 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

Mr S’ complaint against Friends 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 should be upheld Friends Life should pay total compensation of £1,000.

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

Complaint summary

Mr S has complained that Friends Life could not initially trace the Scheme, and that as a consequence of this he received no information regarding his potential retirement benefits.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr F’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 F £1,000 for the significant distress and inconvenience he has experienced.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr D’s complaint against Capita 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) Capita should pay interest on the missed annuity payment, and compensate him for the significant distress and inconvenience it has caused him to suffer.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr Y’s complaint against MyCSP and IPS 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, MyCSP and IPS shall compensate Mr Y for the significant distress and inconvenience they caused him by their mishandling of his case.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

The Applicants’ complaint against Hornbuckle 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) Hornbuckle should pay any penalties imposed by HMRC on the SIPP. Hornbuckle should also award £500 to each of the Applicants to recognise 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

Ms E’s complaint is partly upheld, but there is a part of the complaint I do not agree with. To put matters right, the Council should compensate her for the non-financial loss she has suffered.

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

Complaint summary

Ms E says that she was not previously made aware of any restrictions to transfer out after her 59th birthday. As a result, she was unable to make informed financial decisions about her pension.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr I’s complaint against Kirklees 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, Kirklees should pay Mr I £500 for the significant distress and inconvenience caused.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr D’s complaint against Atkin and the Trustees 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 Trustees should write off the overpayments which are subject to limitation defence. The Trustees are able to recover the overpayments which occurred from 25 May 2010 onwards.

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