Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr R has complained that, following his application, the Trustee transferred his pension to Capita Oak Pension Scheme (the Capita Oak Scheme) without performing adequate checks on the receiving scheme and the pension monies have now been lost.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Ms S’ complaint is upheld and to put matters right the Trustee and DTL should provide a full response to the questions raised by Ms S, and pay her £1,000 each to reflect the significant distress and inconvenience caused to her by their maladministration. If Ms S wishes to exercise her statutory right to a transfer value from the Scheme to a named pension arrangement that is willing to accept it, the Trustee and DTL should pay a transfer value to that arrangement.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr Y has complained that NHSBSA are not willing to allow him to transfer the contributions he made into the Scheme to a private pension arrangement with Prudential. He says that if a transfer to a scheme offering flexible access is not allowed he will have lost out on the employer’s contributions made on his behalf while in the Scheme.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr N’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right Friends Life should pay to his drawdown fund a sum representing the difference between the investment return that would have accrued had it completed the transfer in a timely manner and the investment return that has actually been achieved. Friends Life should also provide Mr N with a refund of the portion of the final annual administration fee that has not already been reimbursed.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Ms S’ complaint and no further action is required by Aviva and Hartley.

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

Complaint summary

Ms S has complained that Aviva made an unauthorised transfer of her funds in the Plan to Hartley, following Hartley’s request. She says she did not give her consent for the transfer to take place, and does not consider it appropriate that Hartley will deduct administration fees if the funds are returned to Aviva.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr N’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right the Trustee should pay Mr N £2,000 for its failure to reply to Mr N and MyCSP should pay £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mrs S’ complaint and no further action is required by Royal London

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

Complaint summary

Mrs S’ complaint against Royal London is about its requirement that she receive financial advice before it can allow a transfer of her personal pension to another provider. Royal London say this is because she has safeguarded benefits and it cannot waive this requirement as Mrs S has suggested.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr S’ complaint and no further action is required by PIC.

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

Complaint summary

Mr S’ complaint concerns PICs refusal to provide him with a Transfer Valuation (TV) in 2016. PIC said this is due to Mr S being beyond his Normal Retirement Date (NRD) and the Plan Rules state a member cannot request a TV if they are within 12 months of NRD.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr S’ complaint and no further action is required by Mercer.

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

Complaint summary

Mr S has complained that Mercer should have undertaken more due diligence on the pension scheme he proposed to transfer to, the Pennines RBS Pension Scheme (the Pennines Scheme). It has since been established that the Pennines Scheme is linked to pension liberation and it appears Mr S has lost his pension.