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.

Outcome

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

Mrs Y’s complaint against the Trust 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  Trust should pay Mrs Y £500 compensation in recognition of the clear distress and inconvenience which she has experienced in having to deal with this matter.

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

Complaint summary

Mrs Y complains that:

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr Y’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 Y has complained that the Trustee of the Plan did not give sufficient information about a change to the early retirement factors. This has upset his retirement plans and he has lost the opportunity to take remedial steps to counteract the changes and for which he feels he should be compensated.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs D’s complaint against Veterans UK 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) Veterans UK should pay Mrs D an additional £250 for non-financial injustice.

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