Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mrs S’ complaint and no further action is required by First Actuarial.

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

Complaint summary

Mrs S says First Actuarial unreasonably delayed the transfer out process. But for the delay, her total transfer payment would have been £3,722 higher.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr K has complained about a £363 reduction in the value of his pension after it was transferred into the Plan in 2015. He believes this value change is as a result of an undisclosed transfer-in charge from NOW.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr S’ complaint against LBWF is partly upheld, but there is a part of the complaint I do not agree with. To put matters right, for the part that is upheld, LBWF should pay Mr S compensation for the significant distress and inconvenience caused to him by its mishandling of his case.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I agree with the complaint but, the compensation ReAssure have paid adequately compensates Mr S for the delay in transfer.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Miss O’s complaint and no further action is required by James Hay.

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

Complaint summary

Miss O has complained about a number of administrative errors on the part of James Hay, and the delays in completing a transfer-out of the Scheme which she says has caused a financial loss.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr E disagrees with the decision of the Trustees not to allow him to take advantage of Pension Freedoms and transfer his protected benefits out of the Scheme. He also says that the Trustees failed to inform him about his right to take a “bulk” transfer and thus keep the protected elements of his benefits.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs Y’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right Cabinet Office should pay Mrs Y £2,000 to recognise the significant distress and inconvenience she has suffered.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr I has complained that MyCSP has refused to issue him with a cash equivalent transfer value (CETV) to enable him to transfer his PCSPS benefits into a SIPP.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr D complains that the Trustees improperly reduced the cash equivalent transfer value (CETV) available to him from the Plan by £223,043.51 in November 2016.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr S’ complaint and no further action is required by Equitable Life

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

Complaint summary

Mr S has complained that Equitable Life transferred the Plans to a fraudulent pension scheme, the Salmon Enterprise (UK) Pension Scheme (the Salmon Scheme), and he has subsequently lost his entire pension.