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.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mrs N’s complaint against the Council is that she was misled about the cash equivalent transfer value (CETV) amount of her benefits. As a result, the eventual amount paid out to the receiving scheme, in December 2016, was lower than she expected. Mrs N would like the Council to pay the shortfall.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr S says that he was entitled to pension contributions from the Employer between 2015 and 2017.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mrs Y’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 Y’s complaint concerns the final value of her pension benefits in February 2016 as it differs from the retirement statement she received in September 2015. She believes that she ought to have been informed of the change in value regardless of how much the difference was.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Ms N’s complaint and no further action is required by Clerical Medical.

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

Complaint summary

Ms N’s complaint about Clerical Medical is that they provided her with an incorrect pension quotation in 2012. She relied on this to her detriment when deciding to retire at her normal retirement date.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr X’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 X was a deferred member of the Scheme, and has complained that the tax-free cash lump sum he received on retirement was lower than that quoted in the Benefit Information Pack (BIP).

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr E’s complaint against Liberty SIPP 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, Liberty SIPP shall take whatever action is necessary to resolve the conflict of interest that has arisen.  It shall also pay Mr E £500 in recognition of the significant distress and inconvenience he has suffered.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr R’s complaint and no further action is required by Scottish Widows.

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

Complaint summary

Mr R has complained that Scottish Widows ought to have informed him about the impact taking a partial encashment of his benefits from the Policy would have on his Money Purchase Annual Allowance (MPAA).

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr H complains that Bentley and the Trustees have wrongly declined his application for payment of his pension in the Scheme on an unreduced basis from his 57^th He also contends that the Respondents did not notify him at any time that this option was no longer available to him.