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.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mrs S’ complaint and no further action is required by Suffolk Life.

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

Complaint summary

Mrs S complained about Suffolk Life’s decision to require her to transfer her SIPP to another pension scheme.

Mrs S has complained that this action is unreasonable and unjustified and has caused her significant distress.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mrs B claims that she has an entitlement to a pension from one of the Bank’s UK pension schemes based on a letter she received dated 7 August 1981.  Mrs B is also complaining about the failure of the Bank to respond to correspondence during the complaint process.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr Y’s complaint is upheld against FPOL. To put matters right it will contact Prudential to obtain a calculation of the difference in the value of the Plan, had Mr Y’s funds been invested as he requested. FPOL are then to pay the difference into Mr Y’s new plan (as the Plan with Prudential is now closed) in accordance with my directions set out in paragraphs 26 and 27 of this determination.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr S’s complaint and no further action is required by James Hay.

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

 Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr N’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right Phoenix Life shall pay Mr N compensation for any financial loss he has suffered.

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

Complaint summary

Mr N’s complaint against Phoenix Life is about its failure to provide him with retirement options in advance of his selected retirement date (SRD).

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr D has complained that Scottish Widows failed to complete the transfer of his pension policies in an efficient and timely fashion. He also believes Scottish Widows has broken its own “Conflicts Policy” by referring him to one of its “Direct Sales team”.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr N’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right Fast Pensions should provide a full written response to Mr N’s questions regarding his funds in the Plan, including the current value; and assist him in exercising his statutory rights.  Fast Pensions should also pay Mr N, £1,000, to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to him by their maladministration. 

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr R’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 R’s complaint against the Trustees is that they failed to ensure that the buildings insurance was in place for an asset of the Plan.