Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs N’s complaint against Aviva is partly upheld, but there is a part of the complaint I do not agree with. In view of the compensation award already offered by Aviva I will not make an additional award.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Ms R’s complaint against the Council 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 Council shall award Ms R £500 in recognition of the significant distress and inconvenience which she has suffered dealing with this matter.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint Summary

Mr Y has complained about the administration of his Suffolk Life SIPP and issues that have arisen with the property held by it.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld in part. Suffolk Life sent inaccurate information to The Pensions Advisory Service (TPAS) and sent information relating to Mr Y and other clients to incorrect addresses.

The other complaints brought to this Office should not be upheld.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr Y’s complaint against RMSPS 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) RMSPS should write off the overpayments that are subject to the limitation defence. RMSPS is able to recover overpayments made on and after 31 January 2012.  RMSPS should also pay Mr Y the £500 previously offered.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr N’s complaint against Mercer 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), Mercer should pay Mr N £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience he has suffered.

I do not uphold Mr N complaint against PIC and no further action is required by it.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr D’s complaint against the Trustee is partly upheld, but there is a part of the complaint I do not agree with. In view of the award already offered by the Trustee I will not make an additional award.

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

Complaint summary

Mr D’s complaint is that the Trustee refused to provide him with information and failed to respond to his requests.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr M’s complaint against Prudential is partly upheld. To put matters right for the part that is upheld, Prudential shall pay Mr M £500 in respect of significant distress and inconvenience caused by poor complaint-handling.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr T’s complaint against Faltec is upheld and to put matters right Faltec shall within 14 days pay to Mr T the refund of contributions due and £500 for the significant distress and inconvenience he has experienced. I do not uphold the complaint against Aegon.

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

Complaint summary

Mr T has complained that he was auto enrolled into the Scheme without his agreement and Aegon and Faltec have refused to refund his contributions.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint Summary

Mrs K has complained that NHS BSA’s decision to recover an overpayment of Personal Injury Benefit (PIB), which was paid by the Scheme, is unfair.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint Summary

Mr Y complains that the Trustees and Aon, the Scheme administrator, provided him with a series of incorrectly overstated illustrations of the benefits available to him on retirement from the Scheme which he had requested over the years after becoming a deferred pensioner. He says that he had relied upon these erroneous illustrations to his financial detriment by: