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.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr E’s complaint against the Trustee and Capita 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 E an award of £500, in addition to the £500 that he has already received, in respect of the significant non-financial injustice he has suffered.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr A has complained that the fund growth detailed in the Plan’s fund factsheet does not match the limited growth achieved by his Plan. He therefore suggests the fund factsheet is misleading and is not fit for purpose.

Mr A would like Aegon to increase his fund value to match the returns detailed in the fund factsheet.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr S’ complaint and no further action is required by James Hay, other than those that it is already in the process of completing.

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

Complaint summary

Mr S complains about James Hay’s administration of his SIPP, and the changes made to its terms and conditions, as well as the fees charged, of which he says he had no notification.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr N’s complaint against Hornbuckle is about delays, incorrect information and poor customer service, from 2011 to 2015. He calculates the total cost of resolving these issues to be more than £14,000.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mrs M’s complaint and no further action is required by NHS BSA.

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

Complaint summary

Mrs M has complained that, as a deferred member, she was provided with incorrect advice on how to claim her NHS pension at age 55 and that as a result she took several steps that she otherwise would not have done.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr T has complained that he received information which led him to believe he would receive a higher pension when he reached retirement age.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr N has complained that errors were made concerning the revised commutation factors issued by GAD in April 2011. He considers that the errors relate to when the factors were prepared, how often they were prepared and how they have been implemented.