Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mrs R’s complaint and no further action is required by NEST.

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

Complaint summary

Mrs R’s complaints against NEST are about:

1) how it asked for information when processing her claim for benefits;
2) that it mislaid her driving licence; and
3) about the problems she experienced when trying to submit online messages

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Ms S’ complaint and no further action is required by BAPSL or the Trustee.

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

Complaint summary

Ms S alleges that BAPSL provided misleading information and made other administrative errors following her subsequent enquiries. Ms S says she delayed exercising her right to take a cash equivalent transfer value (CETV) as a direct result.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr E’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 E’s complaint against Aviva is that the transfer value he has been provided with does not reflect the value of the benefits within the Scheme.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr E has complained that Fidelity ignored his instruction to transfer his funds held within the SIPP in-specie.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Miss Y’s complaint and no further action is required by NHS BSA.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr D’s complaint against NEST 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, NEST shall pay Mr D £500 for the significant distress and inconvenience caused.

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 as there is no outstanding injustice to be remedied.

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

Complaint summary

Mr N’s complaint concerns the contingent spouse’s pension previously described to him, when compared to that provided for under the relevant Scheme provisions. Mr N says he was not informed of the significance of the term “qualifying spouse” in the Scheme rules.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Miss G’s complaint and no further action is required by MyCSP.

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

Complaint summary

Miss G’s complaint concerns the advice she received from MyCSP when she sought assistance in completing her benefit options forms. She believes she was misinformed by MyCSP and this has resulted in her annual pension being reduced.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr E’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 E’s complaint is that an annuity quotation he received recently is substantially lower than previous illustrations. Mr E also asserts that bonuses have incorrectly not been applied to his pension since 2003.