Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

Complaint summary

Ms I has complained that her permanent injury benefit (PIB) payments should be payable from March 2017; she was not given a forecast of her PIB payments; a PIB deterioration review was delayed; and her data was not shared with due regard by NHS BSA.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

Complaint summary

Miss E’s complaint is about the £45 investor charge that had been applied to her pension account, as well as Fidelity’s delay in processing her application. Miss E decided to transfer her benefits from the Scheme to another provider because of Fidelity’s actions. As a result, Miss E would like Fidelity to ensure that she has not experienced a financial loss and for it to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

Complaint Summary

Mrs N complains that she disagrees with the Trustee’s decision to reduce her pension at age 65 and not age 66.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

Complaint summary

Ms I is unhappy that her application for Permanent Injury Benefit (PIB) was not accepted by NHS BSA.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr Y has complained that BW failed to carry out sufficient due diligence when he transferred £174,000 from the SIPP to the Salmon Enterprises Pension Scheme (the Scheme).

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mrs L’s complaint and no further action is required by Ulster Bank.

Complaint summary

Mrs L has complained about the circumstances around her retirement. She has raised the following complaints:-

Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint Summary

Mr R’s complaint concerns revaluation changes made by the Trustee. He considers that the Trustee cannot make such changes to benefits he has accrued without his consent, as these form part of his subsisting rights. He says that the amended method of revaluation which applies to his accrued benefits as an active member is less generous than that which applies to deferred members of the Scheme.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

The complaint is not upheld against the Trustee because:-

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr T has complained that he has an entitlement to benefits from the Fund in the form of a return of his employee contributions which he has not received and which the Fund denies.

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 complained that when he was sent his retirement options, he was not provided with a transfer value illustration. Mr N considers that the absence of this information meant he was unable to make an informed decision when he selected his retirement benefits. Mr N said, had he known the transfer value amount, he would have transferred to another pension arrangement and received a higher lump sum.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

Complaint summary

Ms R’s complaint is that SPPA should re-instate her Mental Health Officer (MHO) status.