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.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr N’s complaint against Aviva 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) Aviva should pay Mr N £1,000 for distress and inconvenience.

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

Complaint summary

Mr N believes that the transfer value Aviva have paid does not represent the true value of the Policy.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr N’s complaint against NCC 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) NCC should pay Mr N £500 for distress and inconvenience.

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

Complaint summary

Mr N has complained that NCC have said he is not able to transfer his benefits to another provider.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Dr L’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 compensate her for the non-financial loss she has suffered.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

1. Mr L’s complaint against Equiniti Limited and Lloyds Banking Group Pensions Trustees Ltd is partly upheld, but there is a part of the complaint I do not agree with.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs E’s complaint against Roxburgh and Standard 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) she should be compensated for the significant distress and inconvenience their maladministration has caused her to suffer.

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