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:-

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.

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.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I partly uphold Miss O’s complaint and direct the Cabinet Office to pay Miss O £500 for the loss of expectation and distress and inconvenience she has experienced as a result of the incorrect information she received from MyCSP.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr N’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 N’s complaint is about the Trustee’s interpretation of the Scheme’s Rules in relation to the calculation of pensionable salary increases.

He claims that he was entitled to, but did not receive, a pensonable salary increase review on 1 October 2015. Mr N says this has had a detrimental effect on his retirement benefits.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mrs D’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

Mrs D’s complaint against the Trustee is that she was given incorrect retirement benefit quotations which she relied on when making the decision to retire early.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr N’s complaint and no further action is required by Aon Consulting Ltd, Champain Financial Services Ltd, Legal & General Assurance Society Limited, LSG Sky Chefs UK Ltd, or Mercer Limited.

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

Complaint summary

Mr N has complained that funds held for him in the LSG Sky Chefs Retirement Partnership have been unlawfully accessed and he has been denied his benefits.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr E’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right AJ Bell shall carry out a financial loss calculation in order to provide Mr E with fair redress. AJ Bell shall also pay Mr E £500 in recognition of the significant distress and inconvenience he has experienced.

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

Complaint summary

Mr E complains that AJ Bell did not properly process a contribution he made to the SIPP, resulting in a loss of investment opportunity.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr 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 S’ complaint concerns the Trustee’s failure to provide him with information regarding his Additional Voluntary Contributions (AVCs) fund which would indicate its poor performance. Mr S is dissatisfied that the AVCs’ investment yield would only cover the annual charges.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Ms Y’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right Phoenix should reconsider its decision and inform her of its conclusions, with reasons.

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

Complaint summary

Ms Y’s complaint is that Phoenix rejected her application to receive a share of the death benefits arising from the Plan.