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.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I partly uphold Mr T’s complaint

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

Complaint summary

Mr T’s complaint against Aegon is about the reduced value of his benefits in the Scheme. Mr T says he was not told that his contributions were invested in ‘initial units’, and that Aegon failed to send annual statements which would have alerted him to the decreasing value of his benefits.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs L’s complaint is upheld and, to put matters right, Aviva shall pay Mrs L £500 for the significant distress and inconvenience she has suffered.

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

Complaint summary

Mrs L complains about the inconsistent information she has received regarding the date her contributions were paid to Aviva and subsequently invested. She also questions the charges that have been applied for administering her pension.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr I’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 I has complained about what he considers to be preferential treatment given to other members of the Scheme and senior managers of Concentric PLC (the Company).

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr Y’s complaint against USS 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), USS shall pay £500 to Mr Y.

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

Complaint summary

Mr Y has complained about the misinformation given by USS, the Scheme administrator, which led him to believe he would receive a higher lump sum and pension income.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr Y complains that he has been unfairly prevented from aggregating his service as a soldier, with his reckonable service as an officer.

Mr Y says that he was not told that he would lose the three years of reckonable service that accrued whilst he was a soldier, when he changed roles.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr A’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 A’s complaint concerns Aviva’s decision not to pay him the annuity as a lump sum payment.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr R’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 R has complained that his annuity is lower than he was originally quoted.