Complaint summary

Mr Dodge’s complaint against the Commissioner and Capita relates to their failure to inform him of the tax penalties on his retirement benefits when taking subsequent re-employment.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld against the Commissioner because it had a duty of care, as Mr Dodge’s employer, to have informed him of the tax implications of re -employment on his retirement benefits. Its failure to do so has led to Mr Dodge incurring tax charges on his retirement benefits.

Complaint summary

Ms Lott’s complaint against the Commissioner and Capita relates to their failure to inform her of the tax penalties on her retirement benefits when taking subsequent re-employment.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld against the Commissioner because it had a duty of care, as Ms Lott’s employer, to have informed her of the tax implications of re -employment on her retirement benefits. Its failure to do so has led to Ms Lott incurring tax charges on her retirement benefits.

Complaint summary

Mr Cherry’s complaint against the Commissioner and Capita relates to their failure to inform him of the tax penalties on his retirement benefits when taking subsequent re-employment.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld against the Commissioner because it had a duty of care, as Mr Cherry’s employer, to have informed him of the tax implications of re -employment on his retirement benefits. Its failure to do so has led to Mr Cherry incurring tax charges on his retirement benefits.

Ombudsman’s determination and reasons

Miss A’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right MoJ should consider the matter again and provide Miss A with a detailed explanation regarding her application for  early release of her deferred pension on grounds of compassion. Further in recognition of the distress and inconvenience Miss A has experienced, MoJ will pay her compensation of £500.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Ms O’s complaint and no further action is required by the Trustee or Accenture.

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

Complaint summary

Ms O has complained that her then IFA (the IFA), was given incorrect information by Accenture, that indicated that she could take a tax free lump sum (TFLS) from her pension credit (PC) rights.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr N’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right T&M should pay compensation to Mr N.

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

Complaint summary

Mr N has complained that T&M delayed in processing a disinvestment of his pension funds and in passing on the resulting proceeds for re-investment, causing him financial loss.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr E’s complaint but there is one point requiring action by Prudential.

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

Complaint summary

Mr E had complained that following a mistake made by Prudential in late 2008 (prior to part of the Plan being transferred to another provider), his remaining assets in the With-Profits fund were not subjected to the correct level of guaranteed increases.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs D’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right, the Trustee should complete and return the relevant payment instructions form to Abbey Life (the administrators of the Scheme), pay Mrs D a lump sum amounting to the backdated payments that should have been paid from her Normal Retirement Date (NRD) and a further £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused to her.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Dr S’ complaint is upheld and to put matters right NHS BSA should pay him £500 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the NHS BSA’s failure in making payments in a timely manner.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr N’s complaint against Aviva is partly upheld. To put matters right, in 28 days from the date of this determination, Aviva should pay Mr N £1,990.24 which includes:

• £1,676.69, representing loss of tax free cash;
• £13.55 which is the difference between £277.42 (the original calculated loss) and £290.97 (the correct calculated loss); and
• £300 being the remaining amount to be paid for distress and inconvenience.

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