Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I agree that part, but not all, of this complaint should be upheld. To put matters right for the part that should be upheld, Skipton BS and the Skipton Trustee shall jointly pay £1,000 to Mr Y, in recognition of the serious distress and inconvenience that has been caused.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr S’ complaint is partly upheld. On the recommendation of one of our Adjudicators, the Trustee has paid Mr S a suitable award for the non-financial injustice caused, and so I make no further directions.

Complaint summary

Mr S has complained that the Trustee changed the Scheme benefits calculation method after he agreed to take voluntary redundancy (VR).

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

Complaint summary

Mr N has complained that the Respondents failed to offer him access to an unreduced pension when he was offered voluntary redundancy. Mr N believes he was entitled to be offered an unreduced pension in the event of voluntary redundancy as he had a protected pension age (PPA) and it was an entitlement under the Scheme Rules.

He says that if he had been offered it, he would have accepted it.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

Complaint summary

Mr K has complained that Prudential did not advise him of the impact the State Spreading Option (SSO) would have on his Lifetime Allowance (LTA). Mr K says when he started receiving pension benefits from another provider it caused him to exceed his LTA, incurring a higher tax charge.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

Complaint summary

Mrs M successfully transferred-out her benefits held within the Scheme. During her transfer application, all members of the Scheme were sent details of a transfer enhancement exercise. Mrs M said that she did not receive this and so her transfer was completed with a non-enhanced transfer value.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

Complaint summary

Mr D’s complaint is that Huhtamaki, his employer, did not inform him that he could transfer to the Scheme from its non-contributory money purchase scheme, in 1993 and 2003, when other employees were given this option.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

Complaint summary

Mr K is unhappy with the pension benefits he received when he left employment in September 2016. He was expecting to receive the benefits shown on a preserved pension award statement that he received when he left the Scheme. Mr K would like to receive the benefits shown on the statement.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

Complaint summary

In summary, Mr N is complaining that NBS Group should have taken action to prevent him from automatically enrolling in the Scheme. As a consequence, he exceeded the Lifetime Allowance (LTA) limits, resulting in excess tax charges payable to HMRC.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

Complaint summary

Miss E has complained that she was not able to commute her benefits from the age of 55. She argued that she was incorrectly told that it was possible for her to commute her benefits at 55; consequently, she borrowed money from her parents in order to fund home improvements.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mrs R’s complaint and no further action is required by WTW or the Trustee.

Complaint summary

Mrs R has complained that she was led to believe she would receive a tax-free cash lump sum of £16,689.88, but she only received £12,625.02.