Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mrs S’ complaint and no further action is required by Wirral Council.

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

Complaint summary

Mrs S has complained that Wirral Council, the administering authority, have said she is not able to take her benefits as a trivial commutation payment in accordance with the de minimis rules.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr P’s complaint and no further action is required by Aviva
My reasons for reaching this decision are explained in more detail below.

Complaint summary

Mr P has complained that Aviva has refused to honour the contract he has for pension increases at 3% a year to be applied to the pension.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr E’s complaint and no further action is required by Aviva UK Life

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

Complaint summary

Mr E has complained that Aviva have refused to honour the contract he has for pension increases at 5% a year to be applied to the pension.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mrs S’ complaint and no further action is required by Department for Education or TP.

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

Complaint summary

Mrs S has complained that TP ought to have told her in 2015 that it was possible for her to take a phased retirement within the Scheme.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr M’s complaint and no further action is required by PSA or the Trustees.

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

Complaint summary

Mr M has complained that he is receiving a lower pension than he was expecting.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mrs L’s complaint and no further action is required by MP.

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

Complaint summary

Mrs L’s complaint is that she believed she was making contributions to an additional voluntary contribution (AVC) plan from 1994, but MP has said these were in fact contributions towards additional widower’s pension benefits.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr E’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 E has complained that the Trustees failed to make him aware of the consequences of paying the maximum level of contributions into the Scheme.

Ombudsman’s Determination

 Complaint Summary

Mr S has complained that Royal London has incorrectly interpreted the terms of the Policy in respect of the benefit payable to him. Specifically, Mr S says the Policy clearly states that, from age 60, it would pay an annuity per year of £2,127, “exclusive of profits”. He takes this wording to mean that profits would be added to, and therefore increase, the basic annuity.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr L says Fidelity repeatedly failed to provide confirmation on his protected tax free cash entitlement, equalisation of his benefits, and to provide other information originally requested in November 2016. Fidelity also failed to administer his Plan correctly and mishandled his complaint.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Miss M’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right the Scheme’s Committee (the Committee), on behalf of the Trustees should reconsider its decision not to pay Miss M a dependant’s pension.

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

Complaint summary

Miss M’s uncle has complained on her behalf because he is dissatisfied that the Committee has not agreed to pay Miss M a dependant’s pension.