Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr Y’s complaint is upheld, and to put matters right Fast Pensions should answer his queries about the Plan and assist him in exercising a statutory right to a transfer out of the Plan to a named pension arrangement that is willing to accept it, if he so wishes. Fast Pensions should also pay Mr Y £2,000 to reflect the prolonged significant distress and inconvenience caused to him by its maladministration.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Miss N’s complaint is upheld, and to put matters right Fast Pensions should provide a full response to Miss N’s questions about the status and security of the Plan and assist her in exercising her statutory right to a transfer out of the Plan to a named pension arrangement that is willing and able to accept it, if she so wishes. Fast Pensions should also pay Miss N £2,000 to reflect the prolonged significant distress and inconvenience caused to her by its maladministration.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold the Estate’s complaint and no further action is required by Hargreaves Lansdown, the Trustees and AON.

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

Complaint summary

The Estate’s complaint against Hargreaves Lansdown, the Trustees and AON is about the delay in the completion of the late Mr N’s transfer request.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr S’ complaint is upheld and to put matters right Fidelity should pay compensation in recognition of the financial loss he has suffered.

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

Complaint summary

Mr S’ complaint is that Fidelity has not transferred his benefits from the Scheme to another pension arrangement of his choice, despite him completing all of the requirements within the timeframe set by Fidelity.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr N’s complaint is upheld and, to put matters right AJ Bell should compensate Mr N for the difference between what his SIPP was worth when it crystallised and what it would have been worth, had his SIPP transfer not been delayed.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

The Applicants have complained that the Trustees made a decision not to pay backdated interest on Cash Equivalent Transfer Values (CETVs) from the date that the Trustees refused to recognise the transfer of their benefits as a ‘Buddy’ Transfer.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr N is complaining about the Trustees’ delay in producing a Cash Equivalent Transfer Value (CETV) following his request in April 2016. He believes the CETV should have been produced before the Trustees adopted a revised method of calculating CETVs.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr N’s complaint against MFRA is partly upheld, but there is a part of the complaint I do not agree with.  To put matters right for the part that should be upheld, MFRA should pay £500 to Mr N, to compensate him for the significant distress and inconvenience that has been caused to him.

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