Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs 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 shall pay £100 to Mrs S for the loss of interest on the initial contribution of £4,000 and reimburse any non-refundable expenditure that Mrs S has incurred as a result of Aviva’s maladministration.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr Y’s complaint against TP and the University 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 University should pay Mr Y £1,000 for the severe distress and inconvenience caused to him by its mishandling of his case.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr L’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 L £600 in recognition of the significant distress and inconvenience caused.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs Y’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 shall pay Mrs Y £500 for the significant distress and inconvenience caused to her by its mishandling of her case.

Complaint summary

Mrs Y’s complaint concerns NHS BSA’s decision to refuse her application for ill health early retirement (IHER) as an active Scheme member and its delay in dealing with her application.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr T’s complaint against Hartley 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), Hartley shall pay Mr T £500 for the significant distress and inconvenience he has experienced.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I agree that part, but not all, of this complaint is upheld. To put matters right in respect of the part that is upheld, Aviva shall pay the additional rental costs incurred (plus interest); and £800, in addition to the £200 previously paid, in recognition of the serious distress and inconvenience that has been caused to Mr H.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr N’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 N £500, as previously offered, to recognise his significant distress and inconvenience.

Complaint summary

Mr N is complaining that the Trustee provided him with incorrect details of his benefits from the Plan in 2004, which he says he relied upon to make financial decisions.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr E’s complaint against AJ Bell 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, AJ Bell shall pay Mr E £500 for the significant distress and inconvenience caused.

Complaint summary

Mr E has raised a series of concerns about the way AJ Bell has administered the SIPP, including:-

Deputy Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Dr T’s complaint against USS Ltd is partly upheld. USS Ltd is able to recover overpayments made on and after December 2011 by way of repayment, but not those made earlier. However, USS Ltd may recoup the full amount from Dr T’s future pension in payment.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Ms R’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 shall pay Ms R £1,000 for the serious distress and inconvenience this situation has caused.

Complaint summary

Ms R’s complaint concerns the customer service she received from Aviva. She is unhappy with its delay in following her instructions and, also with the way it has dealt with her complaint. She believes Aviva’s actions amount to maladministration.