Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

Complaint summary

Mr L is unhappy that the Trustee will not pay his pension benefits from his normal retirement date (NRD) in 2016. Further, he says it was not clear at the time that the option to be paid his benefits from NRD would not be available at a later date.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr E’s complaint.

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

Complaint summary

Mr E complains that in June 2017 the Trustee and Aon provided him with a quotation incorrectly showing that the total cash equivalent transfer value (CETV) available to him from the Plan of £542,621.87 excluded his Additional Voluntary Contributions (AVCs). He says that:

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr R’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

Mr N’s complaint against the Trustee 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) the Trustee should pay Mr N £500, as previously offered, to recognise his significant distress and inconvenience.

Complaint summary

Mr N is complaining that the Trustee provided him with incorrect details of his benefits from the Plan in 2004, which he says he relied upon to make financial decisions.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr Y’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 Y complains he has received conflicting information from the Trustee as to whether his transferred-in service would be included in calculating whether he qualifies for unreduced, early retirement from the Scheme.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

Complaint summary

Mr Y complained that Aviva (previously Sun Life) is not allowing him to take a tax-free lump sum, or early retirement, from the Plan. He said the policy document (the Policy) sets out both as options.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

Complaint summary

Mr U complains that he was not given sufficient time to consider his options after being informed that his Plan investments were being switched to a new fund.

As a result of the switch, he says he was unable to transfer his Plan investment, and this has resulted in an investment loss of around £17,000. Mr U would like to be compensated for this.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

Complaint summary

Miss E complains about Fidelity’s poor administration. She claims the following:-

Fidelity was not transparent about the applicable fees.

The fees appeared to be inconsistent.

Fidelity had caused delays with a payment into the Scheme.

Fidelity had incorrectly added a beneficiary to her pension.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

Complaint summary

Miss E’s complaint is about the £45 investor charge that had been applied to her pension account, as well as Fidelity’s delay in processing her application. Miss E decided to transfer her benefits from the Scheme to another provider because of Fidelity’s actions. As a result, Miss E would like Fidelity to ensure that she has not experienced a financial loss and for it to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr D’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 D complains that the Trustees did not inform him that the early retirement pension available to him from the MPS since June 2009 would affect his means-tested State benefits. As a result, Mr D considers that he has suffered a significant financial loss.