Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr T’s complaint against James Hay 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, Phoenix Life shall pay into Mr T’s new pension arrangement redress in respect of any loss incurred by its actions. Phoenix Life shall also pay £500 to Mr T in respect of the significant distress and inconvenience he has suffered.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr N’s complaint against JLT 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, JLT should pay Mr N £1,000 for the very significant distress and inconvenience caused.

The complaint against the Trustee is not upheld.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr E’s complaint against Liberty SIPP 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, Liberty SIPP shall take whatever action is necessary to resolve the conflict of interest that has arisen.  It shall also pay Mr E £500 in recognition of the significant distress and inconvenience he has suffered.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Ms E’s complaint against 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 should pay Ms E £500 for the significant distress and inconvenience she has suffered.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs N’s complaint against AT 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 AT should pay Mrs N a total of £500 in recognition of the significant distress and inconvenience caused.

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

Complaint summary

Mrs N has complained that AT has unduly delayed her transfer.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint Summary

Mr G’s complaint against the respondents is in three main parts:-

The provision of incorrect information and delays caused by the Administrator in relation to both sections of the Scheme.

Delays in the transfer of his benefits, from the defined contribution section of the Scheme, to a separate scheme with Legal & General.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Ms S’ complaint against NHSBSA and Sussex 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 Sussex should, within 14 days of the date of this Determination, pay Ms S £1,000 for the significant maladministration identified.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs T’s complaint against the Company 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 Company and the Trustees should each compensate Mrs T for the significant distress and inconvenience this situation has caused her.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Ms S’ complaint against NHSBSA is partly upheld, but there is a part of the complaint I do not agree with. To put matters right for the part that can be upheld, NHSBSA should pay Ms S £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience she has suffered.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I partly uphold Mr T’s complaint

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

Complaint summary

Mr T’s complaint against Aegon is about the reduced value of his benefits in the Scheme. Mr T says he was not told that his contributions were invested in ‘initial units’, and that Aegon failed to send annual statements which would have alerted him to the decreasing value of his benefits.