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).

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr T’s complaint against Zurich is that he was not able to purchase an annuity before it withdrew from the annuity market. Mr T accepts that it is no longer possible for him to have an annuity with Zurich, but that due to Zurich’s failings, by the time he had secured an annuity with another provider, his fund value had decreased.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr E complained that the process used by BA to calculate part of his pension under the Scheme was unfair as it had caused him to incur a substantial tax charge that could have been avoided.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Miss S’ complaint and no further action is required by TP or DfE.

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

Complaint summary

Miss S’ complaint is that she has been incorrectly refused an ill-health retirement pension (IHRP).

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Ms S’ complaint is that LBM, your employer, and TP, the Scheme administrator, failed to correctly administer your election to purchase Additional Pension (AP).