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.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mrs M’s complaint and no further action is required by A J Bell.

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

Complaint summary

Mrs M complains that A J Bell, the SIT SIPP administrator, failed to invest the £29,000 net contribution which she paid into the SIT SIPP in September 2016, as instructed. As a result, AJ Bell should compensate her for any investment loss which she has incurred up to the current date.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr I’s complaint and no further action is required by the Administrator or the Trustee.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Ms S’ complaint against NHSBSA and Sussex 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 Sussex should, within 14 days of the date of this Determination, pay Ms S £1,000 for the significant maladministration identified.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr E’s complaint and no further action is required by either the Trustee or Towers as there is no outstanding injustice to be remedied.

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

Complaint summary

Mr E complains that Towers failed to provide full information about his pension. Mr E says the details Towers did provide were misleading and inaccurate, and caused him to incur £1,000 in unnecessary fees relating to advice on a transfer.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr S has complained that due to the incorrect retirement quotation he received from PL, he made the decision to retire. He further complains that if PL had provided him with the correct values he would have continued to work until age 70.