Subject

Mr Crick, Mrs Crick and Mr Parker complain that maladministration by Friends Life caused a delay to their transfer of funds from the Scheme to purchase annuities.

The Pensions Ombudsman’s determination and short reasons

The complaint should not be upheld against Friends Life as there is no evidence of maladministration and the length of time taken to process the transfer following the receipt of the transfer forms was not unreasonable.

Complaint Summary

Mrs Roberts has complained that Teachers’ Pensions caused delays and provided incorrect information with regard to her application for Additional Service after Retirement (ASAR) benefits, which resulted in a rejection of her application. She asks that she now be given a backdated award.

Complaint summary

Mr Beasley has complained that Berkeley Burke failed to carry out sufficient due diligence in respect of his investments into Green Oil Plantations and Harlequin Property.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s determination and reasons

The complaint should not be upheld because it was not Berkeley Burke’s responsibility to carry out the level of due diligence suggested by Mr Beasley in respect of investments chosen by him.

Complaint summary

Mr Thomas has complained that Legal & General Trustee Services (the Pensioneer Trustee) failed in their duty as a professional trustee to provide him (as a fellow trustee and a member of the scheme) with sufficient information and guidance about transferring out of two deferred (defined benefit) occupational schemes and into the Trust (a Small Self-Administered Scheme (SSAS)).

Complaint summary

Mr Dodd, a beneficiary as well as a trustee of the Scheme, complains that Mr Bailey refuses to provide him with any information in relation to his entitlements and the Scheme’s current position.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld against Mr Bailey because he has failed to comply with his duties as a trustee under the Scheme provisions and the Occupational and Personal Pension Schemes (Disclosure of Information) Regulations 2013.

Subject

Mr Pinkstone has brought complaints to the Pensions Ombudsman Service on two previous occasions. Mr Pinkstone says that the Ombudsman’s directions have not been complied with because his application for ill health retirement was not reconsidered in the correct manner. He also says that LGPS’s internal dispute resolution procedure (IDRP) was not carried out correctly.

Mr Pinkstone’s complaint is against his former employer, the University, and Bradford MDC, who are the administering authority for West Yorkshire Pension Fund (part of LGPS).

Complaint summary

Mrs Conroy has complained that Northumbria Police Service, her previous employer,  refused to allow her to take her deferred pension early. She also complains that they delayed in dealing with her case.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

The complaint should be partly upheld against Northumbria Police Service to the extent that they delayed in dealing with her case and she should be compensated for the resultant distress and inconvenience she suffered.

Complaint summary

Mr Toward complains that Yorsipp failed to carry out adequate due diligence in Professional Funding Services Ltd (PFS) before sanctioning his request in March 2011, to invest £40,000 of the SIPP fund in PFS by means of an unsecured loan. He also contends that Yorsipp did not subsequently monitor the performance and security of his investment in PFS and as a consequence of these shortcomings he has lost £40,000 in the SIPP.

Complaint summary

Mr Brackley has complained that Bluefin (now Capita) unreasonably delayed the provision of a transfer quotation and the subsequent processing of his request to transfer which has meant that the transfer of his benefits was not completed before Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs (HMRC) delisted the Guernsey-based qualifying registered overseas pension scheme (QROPS) to which he wanted to transfer.

Complaint Summary

1. The Applicants’ complaint is that Friends Life:
a. did not offer them suitable investment options for the cash held in the Scheme;
b. instructed property managers and charged fees for the management of the commercial property held by the Scheme, which was a service they did not require;
c. required them to pay stamp duty land tax (SDLT) of £20,000 plus legal fees on a property transaction;
d. delayed in carrying out the transfer of the funds under the Scheme to their policies with AJ Bell; and