Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr S has complained that Prudential will not allow him to take a second cash lump sum from the Plan. This is because he has already taken the tax free cash lump sum from the Plan, and is now receiving an annuity.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mrs R’s complaint and no further action is required by Friends Life.

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

Complaint summary

Mrs R has complained that she received a number of incorrect statements from Friends Life in relation to her benefit entitlement under the Plan.

She has stated that, based on the amounts shown on these statements, she decided not to make contributions to the Plan during two periods of maternity leave in 2013 and 2015.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr E is complaining that his Cash Equivalent Transfer Value (CETV) will be less than he was originally quoted.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr H has complained that he was given erroneous information by Friends Life about the date which would be used to calculate his transfer value and subsequent transfer payment. The fund value quoted to him the day before his transfer payment was actually processed was £1,500 higher than the amount he received.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Dr L’s complaint against NHS Pensions 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) NHS Pensions should compensate her for the non-financial loss she has suffered.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

1. Mr L’s complaint against Equiniti Limited and Lloyds Banking Group Pensions Trustees Ltd is partly upheld, but there is a part of the complaint I do not agree with.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint Summary

Mr E has complained that BCC and the College are not willing to honour the pension which was promised to him when he agreed a severance package with the College on 16 September 2014.

Mr E says, but for these pension figures, he would not have accepted the severance package offered to him.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld against the College because:-

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 contends that his statement of benefits on leaving employment was legally binding and the Trustees are obliged to honour the figures shown on the statement, backdating any missed payments to date.

Ombudsman’s Determination

I do not uphold Mrs E’s complaint and no further action is required by the Trust.Outcome

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

Complaint summary

Mrs E complains that the Trust failed to inform her at the time she entered into the added years contract that the extra membership which she was purchasing of 3 years 61 days would be insufficient to achieve her aim of 40 years’ total pensionable service in the Scheme on reaching age 60 in August 2015.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr H has complained that LV= failed to act on his instructions which has led to a financial loss.