Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mrs S’ complaint and no further action is required by Royal London

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

Complaint summary

Mrs S’ complaint against Royal London is about its requirement that she receive financial advice before it can allow a transfer of her personal pension to another provider. Royal London say this is because she has safeguarded benefits and it cannot waive this requirement as Mrs S has suggested.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr S’ complaint and no further action is required by PIC.

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

Complaint summary

Mr S’ complaint concerns PICs refusal to provide him with a Transfer Valuation (TV) in 2016. PIC said this is due to Mr S being beyond his Normal Retirement Date (NRD) and the Plan Rules state a member cannot request a TV if they are within 12 months of NRD.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr S’ complaint and no further action is required by Mercer.

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

Complaint summary

Mr S has complained that Mercer should have undertaken more due diligence on the pension scheme he proposed to transfer to, the Pennines RBS Pension Scheme (the Pennines Scheme). It has since been established that the Pennines Scheme is linked to pension liberation and it appears Mr S has lost his pension.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint Summary

Mrs C has complained that Aviva has refused to pay a 3% per annum compound escalation rate on her policy, from its maturity date, which she says was agreed at the outset.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

The complaint should not be upheld against Aviva because:

• The policy expressly provided for the escalation element to be withheld if the policy did not accrue sufficient value to meet the guaranteed minimum pension.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mrs E’s complaint. However, NHSBSA should provide Mrs E with a reconciliation of how they arrive at the sum of £24,000 being due in underpaid pension contributions and explain whether or not this sum includes overpaid pension contributions from Mrs E’s other sources of income.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr N’s complaint and no further action is required by A J Bell.

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

Complaint summary

Mr N is unhappy with the administration fees AJ Bell has charged the SIPP. He says that his transfer value should not be reduced to pay for the scheme sanction charges (SSC) plus the interest accrued. Mr N also says:-

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Miss D’s complaint and no further action is required by SPPA.

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

Complaint summary

Miss D is unhappy because SPPA declined her application for ill-health early retirement (IHER).

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mrs P’s complaint and no further action is required by the Council.

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

Complaint summary

Mrs P’s complaint against the Council is that it refused to consider her ill-health retirement pension (IHRP) from active service.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr R’s complaint and no further action is required by DC.

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

Complaint summary

Mr R is dissatisfied because DC has reduced his injury benefit entitlement from Band 3 to Band 1 in 2015. Mr R’s complaint is in relation to the decision made by DC in 2015.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr N’s complaint and no further action is required by Camden Council.

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

Complaint summary

Mr N says Camden Council led him to believe that he would receive 50% of the total death grant due from the Scheme following the death of his cousin. But instead Camden Council paid it to the estate.