Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

Complaint summary

Mr S’ complaint is that he was not informed of the impact of compulsory redundancy on his pension. He argues that he would have appealed against redundancy, if he had known that he would lose the option of claiming an unreduced pension at age 60. Mr S disagrees with the Trustee’s decision to deny him an unreduced pension before age 65.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

Complaint summary

Mr N’s complaint is that the Trustees did not inform him that he had to complete two years’ pensionable service in the Plan before he would become entitled to a deferred pension. Had he known, he would have made other pension arrangements or stayed in employment until the two-year period was satisfied.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

Complaint summary

Mr M’s complaint is that FIL has refused to refund contributions he made into the Plan following his automatic enrolment. Mr M says that had he been made properly aware that he was being enrolled in the Plan, he would have opted out from the outset.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mrs K’s complaint and no further action is required by Veterans UK.

Complaint summary

Mrs K has complained that Veterans UK has declined to award her “attributable benefits” following the death of her husband.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

Complaint summary

Mr L’s complaint against the Trustee is that he has not been awarded an ill health retirement pension (IHRP) from the Scheme. Mr L believes that he should have been offered a cooling off period by the Scheme’s administrator (the Administrator) after his pension benefits were crystallised in October 2018, in which he subsequently could have applied for an IHRP.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr R’s complaint and no further action is required by RBS, the Trustee and Towers Watson.

Complaint summary

Mr R maintains that his retirement was grossly mishandled. As a result of the delays and service issues, he had to use his savings and was denied access to his lump sum.

Mr R says that 75% of his lump sum was earmarked to repay his fixed rate mortgage, which was due to expire on 30 September 2017. He also suffered a loss of interest on the balance of his lump sum of £85,000.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

Complaint summary

Mr E complains that he received an incorrect annual benefit statement from the Administrator. Mr E would like a review of the error and the impact that this has had on himself and the other affected members.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

Complaint summary

Mr W’s has complained that:-

• As a result of errors by WTW, and the poor level of service it provided, he was not in a position to transfer his benefits from the Scheme earlier.
• The cash equivalent transfer value (CETV) he received was lower than he expected.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mrs N has complained that she made pension contributions into the Scheme but the Administrator has no record of her.