Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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 the Trustee.

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

Complaint summary

Mr N’s complaint concerns the reduction of his cash equivalent transfer value (CETV). He said that he only became aware of the reduction after his benefits were transferred and that failure to notify him and explain the reduction prior to the transfer, amounts to maladministration.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr D’s complaint against the Trustee 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) the Trustee shall pay Mr D £500 in recognition of the significant distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of his case.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mrs R’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 R is complaining that she was incorrectly transferred out of the Scheme to a Section 32 Buy Out Policy (the Policy). She had originally assumed that the transfer was a compulsory buy out, but recently discovered that the original transfer form is missing the signature page.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr L’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right Giant shall pay Mr L £2,381.40. in respect of contributions that it failed to transfer into Mr L’s SIPP and £500 for the significant distress and inconvenience which Mr L has suffered.

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

Complaint summary

Complaint against Giant

Mr L says Giant failed to:-

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Ms D’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right HFPL shall pay into Ms D’s pension arrangement with Royal London, such amount as is necessary so that her monies in that arrangement is of the same value that it would have been had £415,106 been paid into Ms D’s chosen investment on 8 December 2016, rather than £389,785 which was paid into a separate account and later transferred into her chosen pension arrangement.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr Y’s complaint against the Trustee 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) the Trustee should pay Mr Y a total of £500 in respect of the significant distress and inconvenience which he has suffered, m which includes the £250 already offered.

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 the Trustee.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr S’ complaint is upheld and, to put matters right, SJP shall pay him: (i) redress in respect of the lost units he has identified; (ii) interest from date of surrender to date of payment; and (iii) £500 in respect of significant distress and inconvenience.

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