Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr N has complained that ReAssure has said he is unable to take his benefits as a lump sum, because he has already started receiving an annuity from the Scheme.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr H’s complaint and no further action is required by Royal Mail.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mrs N’s complaint is that TP have not re-instated payment of her spouse’s pension from the Scheme following the death of her second husband in August 2016.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr L has complained that ReAssure did not immediately offer the option for him to transfer to a beneficiary drawdown arrangement and that, because of the delay in agreeing and implementing it, he has suffered a financial loss.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr H’s complaint and no further action is required by the Trustees, James Finlay, or Hymans Robertson.

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

Complaint summary

Mr H essentially complains that the Trustees, James Finlay, and Hymans Robertson failed to adequately inform him of the actions which he had to take within prescribed timescales to transfer the benefits available to him from the Fund to a new pension arrangement before they were lost.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mrs T’s complaint and no further action is required by Cabinet Office and My CSP.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Ms S’ complaint and no further action is required by Trustee.

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

Complaint summary

Ms S has complained because she considers the Trustee failed in its duty of care to her, as it did not inform her of the reduced cash equivalent transfer value (CETV) of her ex-husband’s pension, prior to the finalisation of the pension sharing order (PSO).