Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

Complaint summary

Dr Y has complained that his Cash Equivalent Transfer Value (CETV) is too low. He says:-

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

Complaint summary

Mrs H complains that:-

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

Complaint summary

Mr I’s complaint against the Trustee is in three parts:

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

Complaint summary

Mr T’s complaint is that L & G has closed a range of funds and switched his investments into replacement funds, which he says do not perform as well. Mr T says that L & G has done this to increase its profits and to prevent a selection of funds operated by other providers.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

Complaint summary

Mrs T has complained about the manner in which the lump sum death benefit payable on the death of her husband has been distributed. She has complained about the interpretation of the Scheme Rules and the way in which the evidence has been applied in reaching a decision.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

Complaint summary

Mr N has complained that the Respondents failed to offer him access to an unreduced pension when he was offered voluntary redundancy. Mr N believes he was entitled to be offered an unreduced pension in the event of voluntary redundancy as he had a protected pension age (PPA) and it was an entitlement under the Scheme Rules.

He says that if he had been offered it, he would have accepted it.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

Complaint Summary

Mr T complains that:-

• The Harlequin Two Rivers (HTR) investment held in the SIPP has a nominal value of £1.
• He has not been able to close the SIPP.
• Annual Management Charges (AMC) increased since the inception of the SIPP and he wants these to be refunded.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

Complaint summary

Mrs E complains that Aviva’s administrative errors have denied her access to her benefits within the Policy.

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.