Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mrs R’s complaint against Prudential and no further action is required by it.

I uphold Mrs R’s complaint against the Administrator and, to put matters right, it should (1) redress her for loss of potential investment growth associated with the delayed transfer and (2) pay her £500 for significant distress and inconvenience.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr G’s complaint and no further action is required either by the Trustees or by JLT.

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

Complaint summary

Mr G has complained that there was a delay in transferring his benefits, which led to a decrease in the transfer value.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr L’s complaint about FL is that he believes that his benefits under the Plan should attract a higher annuity rate than the one that FL applied to him.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr N’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 N has complained that contrary to the assurances he received from the Trustees before requesting a cash equivalent transfer value (CETV) in June 2016, he was not able to request a further CETV on 6 September 2016.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr N’s complaint and no further action is required by Zurich or CB.

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

Complaint summary

Mr N has complained that Zurich/CB has refused to transfer his pension benefits in the SIPP to another provider and as a result he has missed out on the gains he would have made on the investment in the new pension scheme.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mrs N’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

Mrs N has complained that contrary to the assurances she received from the Trustees before requesting a cash equivalent transfer value (CETV) in June 2016, she was not able to request a further CETV on 6 September 2016.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr I’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right, James Hay Partnership shall pay Mr I £2,000 in recognition of the significant distress and inconvenience caused.

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

Complaint summary

Mr I’s complaint is that James Hay caused an undue and avoidable delay in the transfer of his pension to a new provider. As a result, Mr I lost the opportunity to invest in the stock market immediately following the Brexit referendum in June 2016.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr Y’s complaint is that Texas Instruments:-

Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint Summary

Mr N has complained that the Authority transferred his pension fund to a new pension scheme without having conducted adequate checks in relation to the receiving scheme, and failed to provide him with a sufficient warning as required by the Pensions Regulator. Mr N is concerned that his entire pension fund may have been lost or misappropriated.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

The complaint is upheld against the Authority because it failed: