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.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr K’s complaint against Equiniti 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) Equiniti should issue a payment to Mr K’s IFA, to the value of £950, to account for the fees incurred from unnecessarily seeking financial advice.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr H’s complaint against the Trustees, Mercer and KBR 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, KBR should pay Mr H £500 compensation in recognition of the significant distress and inconvenience which he has experienced in having to deal with this matter.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr E’s complaint against MyCSP 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 shall pay Mr E £500 for the significant distress and inconvenience that he has suffered.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr T’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 pay Mr T £500 for the significant distress and inconvenience caused to him by the misinformation he received. The complaint against the Administrator is not upheld.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Mr N’s complaint against Zurich 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, Zurich should pay Mr N £500 for the significant non-financial injustice which he has suffered.

Outcome

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