Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Ms T’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 is upheld, NHSBSA should make an award to Ms T in respect of the serious non-financial injustice caused to her.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr S’ complaint against Scottish Widows is partly upheld and Scottish Widows shall pay Mr S £1,000 in respect of the serious distress and inconvenience which Mr S has suffered.

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

Complaint summary

Mr S complains that Scottish Widows have imposed and enforced identity verification requirements that, he says, he is unable to fulfil. As a consequence, Mr S is unable to access the benefits held under the Plans.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs T’s complaint is partly upheld and to put matters right the Trustees and WTW shall award Mrs T £1,000 in recognition of the serious distress and inconvenience which she has experienced dealing with this matter.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr N’s complaint 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, Aon should make a distress and inconvenience award to Mr N.

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

Complaint summary

Mr N says he was not told that less favourable early retirement factors apply to deferred members. Had he known about the difference in factors, he would have retired immediately on opting out of the Plan.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs E’s complaint against NHS BSA and the Trust 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 Trust shall pay Mrs E £1,000 to recognise the serious distress and inconvenience she has suffered. NHS BSA is not required to take further action.

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

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.