Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr K’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right, Prudential shall pay £1,000 to Mr K in respect of the serious distress and inconvenience caused.

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

Complaint summary

Mr K has complained that Prudential is at fault for not keeping him informed of the value of his benefits within the Plan.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint Summary

Mr G has complained that IPM failed:-

• To follow his instructions in respect of the 2013 Lease between IPM and AH.
• To act timeously in dealing with the breach of covenants, in the 2013 Lease in respect of ‘Signs’ and ‘Alterations’, by AH.
• To obtain Counsel’s Opinion on the basis advised by its legal adviser.

To put matters right Mr G wants IPM:-

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

1. I do not uphold Ms D’s complaint and no further action is required by Re-Assure.
2. My reasons for reaching this decision are explained in more detail below.

Complaint summary

3. Ms D is complaining that Re-Assure will only allow her to flexibly access her benefits in the Plan, if she transfers to a new retirement account even though she will lose a loyalty bonus (Loyalty Bonus) payable up to retirement, if she transfers.
4. She is also complaining that Re-Assure contin

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr 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

Mr S is complaining that the Council (as the administrator of the LGPS) gave poor advice to his former employer, Neath Port Talbot Council, in 2007 and 2013 and, as such, Mr S’ benefits should not be abated following his decision to take flexible retirement.

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 complains about Aviva and has raised the following points:-

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 says he has been unable to obtain an accurate valuation from Aviva of what the Policy will be worth at retirement age.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr L’s complaint and no further action is required by The Trustee.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr Y’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 Y has complained that the benefits payable from the Plan have been incorrectly calculated by Aviva and not in accordance with his policy documents.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs H’s complaint against ASPH and NHS BSA 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) ASPH shall pay Mrs H £2,000 and NHS BSA shall pay her £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused to her by its mishandling of her case.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr Y’s complaint and no further action is required by Mercer or Open Trustees.

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

Complaint summary

Mr Y complains that Mercer provided him with misleading information in relation to a transfer value quotation, which resulted in a misunderstanding as to what options he had to transfer his benefits out of the Plan.