Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr N has appealed the decision of the Board of the PPF (the Board) to reduce his Financial Assistance Scheme (FAS) benefits going forward. He also does not believe that his asset share was correctly calculated by FAS and that some elements of his pension benefits were omitted from the calculation.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr S has complained that Phoenix Life has not invested his pension fund appropriately, as other Phoenix Life funds have achieved a higher performance. He also complains that he did not receive annual statements from 2005 onwards.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr E’s complaint and no further action is required by Sussex Police.

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

Complaint summary

Mr E’s complaint against Sussex Police is that his request to transfer his benefits out of the Scheme and into a Self-Invested Personal Pension (SIPP) was declined as being out of time.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mrs N’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 N’s complaint against the Council is that she was misled about the cash equivalent transfer value (CETV) amount of her benefits. As a result, the eventual amount paid out to the receiving scheme, in December 2016, was lower than she expected. Mrs N would like the Council to pay the shortfall.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mrs R’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 R’s complaint is that she has been refused Tier 1 ill health pension benefits (IHPB).

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr S says that he was entitled to pension contributions from the Employer between 2015 and 2017.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr R’s complaint and no further action is required by Mercer or the Trustee.

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

Complaint summary

Mr R’s dispute concerns the Personal Accrual Rate (PAR) applied to his benefits within the Plan.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mrs Y’s complaint concerns the final value of her pension benefits in February 2016 as it differs from the retirement statement she received in September 2015. She believes that she ought to have been informed of the change in value regardless of how much the difference was.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr D is unhappy with the level of interest awarded by Aviva on its redress payment to him and has said that, had the error been recognised sooner he could have retired earlier.