Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr S’ complaint against L&G is that it has refunded pension contributions overpaid by Frances King/Quest, his employer, without seeking his permission to do so. He would also like an explanation for the overpayment made in error.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mrs R’s complaint against Prudential and no further action is required by it.

I uphold Mrs R’s complaint against the Administrator and, to put matters right, it should (1) redress her for loss of potential investment growth associated with the delayed transfer and (2) pay her £500 for significant distress and inconvenience.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr G’s complaint and no further action is required either by the Trustees or by JLT.

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

Complaint summary

Mr G has complained that there was a delay in transferring his benefits, which led to a decrease in the transfer value.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr L’s complaint, and no further action is required by FL.

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

Complaint summary

Mr L’s complaint about FL is that he believes that his benefits under the Plan should attract a higher annuity rate than the one that FL applied to him.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mrs S’ complaint and no further action is required by the Trustees or the Administrator.

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

Complaint summary

Mrs S’ complaint concerns the way the Administrator dealt with her late husband’s request to have his pension transferred from the Fund. Mrs S considers that its actions amounted to maladministration which resulted in her incurring a financial loss.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mrs N’s complaint and no further action is required by DWP or MyCSP.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr W’s complaint and no further action is required by the Trustees of the DSSR Group Pension Scheme.

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

Complaint summary

Mr W has complained that the Trustees have reduced his pension going forward because they consider it to have been incorrectly calculated.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr E’s complaint and no further action is required by the Trustees of the DSSR Group Pension Scheme.

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

Complaint summary

Mr E has complained that the Trustees have reduced his pension going forward because they consider it to have been incorrectly calculated.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr N has complained that contrary to the assurances he received from the Trustees before requesting a cash equivalent transfer value (CETV) in June 2016, he was not able to request a further CETV on 6 September 2016.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr E’s complaint and no further action is required by the Principal Employer or the Trustees.

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

Complaint summary

Mr E’s complaint is that the index used for pension increases for TCS Members of the Scheme has been changed from the Retail Prices Index (RPI) to the Consumer Prices Index (CPI).