Skip to main content

The Mountain Private Pension SSAS (PO-12226)

Complainant:
Complaint Topic:
Ref:
Outcome:
Respondent:
Type:
Date:

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.

View determination

Download

Related decisions

Complainant:
Complaint Topic:
Ref:
Outcome:
Respondent:
Type:
Date:

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.

View determination

Download

Related decisions

Lafarge UK Pension Plan (PO-15639)

Complainant:
Complaint Topic:
Ref:
Outcome:
Respondent:
Type:
Date:

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.

View determination

Download

Related decisions

Police Pension Scheme (PO-3495)

Complainant:
Complaint Topic:
Ref:
Outcome:
Respondent:
Type:
Date:

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.

View determination

Download

Related decisions

Teachers’ Pension Scheme – Prudential AVC Facility (PO-19201)

Complainant:
Complaint Topic:
Ref:
Outcome:
Respondent:
Type:
Date:

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr N’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 N complains that Prudential’s sales representative improperly persuaded him to pay additional voluntary contributions (AVCs) to Prudential. He also alleges that the sales representative did not inform him that he could purchase past added years (PAY) in the Teachers’ Pension Scheme.

View determination

Download

Related decisions

Complainant:
Complaint Topic:
Ref:
Outcome:
Respondent:
Type:
Date:

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mrs N’s complaint and no further action is required by Prudential

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

Complaint summary

Mrs N’s complaint against Prudential is about their decision not to allow her to cash in her annuity for a lump sum.

View determination

Download

Related decisions

Complainant:
Complaint Topic:
Ref:
Outcome:
Respondent:
Type:
Date:

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mrs L has complained about Aviva’s errors in the administration of the Plan. Specifically, it incorrectly recorded her address which has resulted in her concerns over data protection.

View determination

Download

Related decisions

Local Government Pension Scheme (PO-15394)

Complainant:
Complaint Topic:
Ref:
Outcome:
Respondent:
Type:
Date:

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mrs R brought the complaint to this Office on behalf of the late Mr R’s estate. Mrs R’s complaint against LPFA and UACES is the following:-

View determination

Download

Related decisions

Complainant:
Complaint Topic:
Ref:
Outcome:
Respondent:
Type:
Date:

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs N’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 shall pay £500 to Mrs N for the significant distress and inconvenience caused to her by its maladministration.

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

View determination

Download

Related decisions

National Employment Savings Trust (PO-18857)

Complainant:
Complaint Topic:
Ref:
Outcome:
Respondent:
Type:
Date:

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr L says Nest unreasonably delayed claiming tax relief on his pension contribution of £500. Although Nest has made good the financial loss, it delayed the process and failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay. Nest then mismanaged his subsequent enquiries and complaint. He has not been compensated for the mistakes made.

View determination

Download

Related decisions

Subscribe to Misquote/misinformation