Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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 Aviva.

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

Complaint summary

Mr N’s complaint against Aviva is about the performance of the Plan funds. Mr N says that the current value of his Plan pension is not worth much more than the cash originally invested in the Plan between 12 October 1995 and 19 December 1999.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr T’s complaint against Phoenix 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) Phoenix shall pay Mr T £2,000 in recognition of the severe distress and inconvenience which he has experienced dealing with this matter.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mrs D’s complaint and no further action is required by the Administrator, Trustee or Santander.

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

Complaint summary

Mrs D complained that the benefit statement she received, after she was made redundant at Alliance and Leicester in 1996, provided a misleading pension estimate of £10,751.76 per annum at age 60. She would like the estimated pension to be paid.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr D’s complaint and no further action is required by MoJ or PSAL.

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

Complaint summary

Mr D’s complaint against MoJ and PSAL is that he was led to believe he would be able to retire at age 60 with an unreduced pension. Mr D later found out that he could not take this pension until he reached age 65.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Miss N’s complaint against the USS Trustee and the University is partly upheld in respect of the University but not the USS Trustee; however, there is a part of the complaint I do not agree with. To put matters right for the part that is upheld, the University shall pay Miss N £500 in respect of significant distress, including loss of opportunity and loss of expectation.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr N has complained that ReAssure has said he is unable to take his benefits as a lump sum, because he has already started receiving an annuity from the Scheme.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs T’s complaint is partly upheld and to put matters right the Trustees and WTW shall award Mrs T £1,000 in recognition of the serious distress and inconvenience which she has experienced dealing with this matter.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr H’s complaint and no further action is required by Royal Mail.

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