Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint Summary

This complaint, which the widow of Mr R (Mrs R) brings in her capacity as an executor of the Estate, concerns the lack of information provided to Mr R in relation to benefits under the Scheme.

In summary, Mrs R’s complaint is that the Administrator, acting on behalf of the Trustees, failed to inform Mr R during his terminal illness that the benefits payable to the Estate, and to her as his widow, would be considerably lower if they were not taken during Mr R’s lifetime.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Ms R’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right Mr White shall within 14 days provide proof of the investment in the Bitcoin Store or confirm the location and value of Ms R’s original investment. Mr White shall also pay Ms R £3,000 in recognition of the exceptional distress and inconvenience she has suffered.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mrs S’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 S’s complaint is that Aviva incorrectly informed her that she could take benefits from three policies within the Scheme as a lump sum.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr S’ complaint is that PP:-

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mrs 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

Mrs N’s complaint is that she has been told she is not entitled to pension benefits from her employment up to 1983. She believes that as she turned 26 years old whilst on maternity leave, she is eligible for a preserved pension and so would like her pension benefits paid to her.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr E has complained about the reduction in the value of his benefits under the Scheme and he feels that Phoenix Life has failed to protect the value of his savings. He has complained that his benefits have reduced, despite being transferred to the Pension Income Protector Fund (the Fund).

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr N’s complaint against JLT 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, JLT should pay Mr N £1,000 for the very significant distress and inconvenience caused.

The complaint against the Trustee is not upheld.

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 Aviva.

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

Complaint summary

Mr N is complaining that Aviva sent him incorrect information over a number of years, showing that his normal retirement age was 60, when in fact it was 65.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mrs S disagrees with the level of annual pension she is receiving from ReAssure. She is claiming that the figures provided on the original illustration dated 29 December 1987 do not match the annual pension figure she is currently receiving.