Subject

Dr Wilkinson complains that NHSBSA wrongly refused to allow a transfer of his University Superannuation Service (USS) pension rights into the NHS Pension Scheme (NHSPS) when he returned to NHS employment in March 2006.

Subject

Mr Heppell has complained that Aegon have not managed or administered his Plan correctly or provided him with correct valuations of his investments and subsequently transferred an incorrect amount from the Plan.

The Deputy Pensions Ombudsman’s determination and short reasons

The complaint should not be upheld against Aegon as although there were errors in the transfer value paid, Aegon have recognised this and offered compensation. Aegon have a legitimate right to seek the return of the overpaid amount included in the transfer value paid.

Subject

Mr Trebilcock complains that Friends Life have refused to allow him to transfer from another scheme into what they describe as the Milestones Plan.

The Pensions Ombudsman’s determination and short reasons

The complaint should be upheld against Friends Life because the Terms and Conditions of the Scheme are contractual and state that he can make a transfer payment from another scheme at any time and there is no reason that the transfer in should be separated out from his existing membership of the Scheme.

Subject

Mr Travis has complained that non-resident employees of Lloyds who were members of the Offshore Scheme have been transferred to an onshore UK registered defined contribution pension scheme (Your Tomorrow). He has complained that the tax treatment of non-resident members is not beneficial and that this was not explained during the consultation process.

Subject

Ms Nowacka’s complaint is that Xafinity Paymaster refunded her PCSPS contributions instead of transferring her entitlement to the New Police Pension Scheme (NPPS).

The Pensions Ombudsman’s determination and short reasons

The complaint should be upheld. Ms Nowacka received confusing correspondence and her home address was not used. In consequence Ms Nowacka missed the opportunity to transfer her entitlement to NPPS.

Subject

Mr Clay alleges that he has suffered a financial loss due to the failure of Curtis Banks Plc (Curtis Banks) to complete an “in specie” transfer of the SIPP assets on a timely basis. He also complains that he has suffered distress and inconvenience because of the delays incurred by Curtis Banks for which he should be compensated.

Complaint summary

Mrs Winstanley’s complaint which is against the Society is about the delay in providing her with a transfer value of her benefits from the Scheme.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s determination and reasons

The complaint should not be upheld against the Society because they were not responsible for the delay in Mrs Winstanley receiving a transfer value from the Scheme.

Complaint Summary

Mr Thomas’ complaint against Sippcentre is that they delayed in transferring the SIPP to another SIPP arrangement with Alliance Trust and that their delay caused him financial loss.

Summary of the Deputy Ombudsman’s determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld against Sippcentre because their admitted delay has caused Mr Thomas financial loss over and above the amount they have offered him as compensation.

Complaint summary

Mr Morton’s complaint against Alliance and Curtis Banks is that he has suffered a financial loss as a result of their failings with regard to the transfer of funds.

 Summary of the Ombudsman’s determination and reasons

The complaint should not be upheld against Alliance because they were not involved in the sale of the Marlborough holding or the purchasing of iShares.

The complaint should be upheld against Curtis Banks because there were delays on their part in the sale of the Marlborough holding and the purchase of iShares.

Complaint summary

Mr Houghton and his wife, Dr Houghton, complain that Fidelity, the transferring scheme manager, and EBS, the receiving scheme administrator, arranged the transfer of the fund value without authority of their own accord and as cash, not in specie as intended.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld against EBS because they sent a letter that Fidelity reasonably understood as a request for a cash transfer.