Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

Complaint summary

Mr T’s complaint is that:-

• Hartley has put a nominal value of £1 on the Harlequin investment held in the SIPP.
• Hartley has not been able to close the SIPP as Mr T requested.
• Hartley continues to charge Mr T Annual Management Charges (AMC) which has increased since the inception of the SIPP and he wants that AMC to be refunded.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

Complaint summary

Dr K holds SPPA responsible for a reduction in her pension benefit entitlement at retirement age. Dr K argues this is a result of SPPA’s decision, made in 2011, that she was no longer eligible to continue her membership in the Scheme following a change in job role.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

Complaint summary

Mr N complains that the cash equivalent transfer value (CETV) he received from the Trustee was incorrect. He believes the CETV should have been based on the enhanced figure he was offered as a result of his serious ill health. He would like the Trustee to pay the difference.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

Complaint summary

Mr S’ complaint against Origen is that a guaranteed annuity rate is not being applied to his Scheme benefits. He was expecting to receive a pension of about £22,000; he is currently projected to receive a pension of about £17,000.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

Complaint summary

Mrs S disagrees with the Trustee’s decision to reduce her incapacity pension by 50%.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

Complaint summary

Mr L has complained that when LFRS calculated his pensionable salary, pay increases he received in the final two years of service were not included. This occurred because, in a prior year, he received an additional allowance which was since removed.

Mr L argues that the allowance, along with the pay increases, should have been used for the purposes of establishing his final pensionable salary.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Dr S’ complaint and no further action is required by USS Ltd.

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

Complaint summary

Dr S disagrees with USS Ltd’s decision to recoup an overpayment of pension and tax free cash lump sum from his current pension payments.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Dr A’s complaint and no further action is required by NHS BSA.

Complaint summary

Dr A is unhappy that NHS BSA has refused to pay him a lump sum after the termination of his second employment following being awarded Permanent Injury Benefit (PIB).

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

Complaint Summary

Mrs N’s complaint was that she was not allocated any of the death benefits paid following the death of her husband, Mr N.

Since the complaint has been accepted by The Pensions Ombudsman (TPO), Fidelity has reconsidered its view and awarded 40% of the benefits to Mrs N and 30% to each of her two sons. It has also made a payment, of £2,000, in recognition of the severe distress and inconvenience caused.