Complaint summary

Dr Alford has complained that NHS Pensions’ maladministration of the annual pension estimate process has resulted in him being liable for an Annual Allowance (AA) tax charge in the 2011/12 tax year.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s determination and reasons

The complaint should not be upheld against NHS Pensions because there was no statutory duty to provide a Pension Saving Statement prior to the end of the 2011/12 tax year. While the estimate information that they gave could have been clearer it was not provided for AA purposes.

Complaint summary

Mr Sherratt complains against Cheshire West & Chester Council, the Administering Authority, because they supplied him with incorrect pension statements, which he relied on in order to take early retirement.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld against Cheshire West & Chester Council because they raised Mr Sherratt’s expectations by providing an incorrect statement.

Complaint summary

Miss Khatra has complained that she should receive compensation for a loss of income connected to:

• maladministration of her added years contributions;
• receipt of an incorrect estimate of retirement benefits upon which she based her decision to retire; and
• a delay in paying her benefits.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s determination and reasons

The complaint should be partly upheld against CNWL, to the extent that they compensate Miss Khatra for the distress and inconvenience caused by their maladministration.

Complaint summary

Mrs Mather has complained that TP provided her with incorrect benefit quotations, due to wrongly including a period of service for which she had previously received a refund of contributions. She is seeking either substantial compensation for the decisions she made in reliance upon the incorrect information, or the level of benefits originally quoted to her.

Complaint summary

Dr Baldwin has complained that he was provided with incorrect information and that he relied on the misinformation when deciding to retire. Had he known his actual pension entitlement was lower than stated, he would have continued to work and would not have triggered his pension until August 2013.

He says that his claim is for negligence and negligent misrepresentation.

He is seeking compensation for loss of income, loss of pension entitlement and for the distress and inconvenience caused by the maladministration in this matter.

Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

I agree that part of Mr N’s complaint against AEGON should be upheld, but there is a part of the complaint I do not agree with. To put matters right, AEGON shall pay Mr N £1,000 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to him by delay in authorising his instructions and £199.90 for the “loss interest” on the £20K transferred to the Barclays Wealth brokerage account in September 2012.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

Mr Y’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right Friends Life should pay Mr Y financial compensation for the loss he has suffered and the distress and inconvenience caused by its error.

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

Complaint summary

Mr Y’s complaint is summarised as follows:

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr H’s complaint and no further action is required by Strathclyde Pension Fund.

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

Complaint summary

Mr H has complained that the Strathclyde Pension Fund have not allowed him to take his entire additional voluntary contributions fund (AVC fund) with the Scheme, as a lump sum.

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 complained that he was provided with misleading information regarding the value of his benefits and the Trustees have refused to honour the figures contained within an on-line benefits projection.

Mr N complained that, as a result, his benefits were less than he had been led to expect.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr E has complained that he was misadvised about his pension options when he left employment with Ford Motor Company Limited (Ford) in March 1987.