Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr K’s complaint against James Hay 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, James Hay shall pay £1,300.75 into Mr K’s self-invested personal pension (SIPP) bank account.

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

Complaint summary

Mr K complains that James Hay has failed to collect the rent due in relation to a property held in his SIPP.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr N’s complaint against James Hay 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, James Hay shall pay £1,064.25 into Mr N’s self-invested personal pension (SIPP) bank account.

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

Complaint summary

Mr N complains that James Hay has failed to collect the rent due in relation to a property held in his SIPP.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr T’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right Mr Howard shall sign the relevant change of address, share indemnity and investment transfer documents that are required to facilitate Mr T’s transfer from the Scheme into his self-invested personal pension (SIPP).

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mrs N’s complaint and no further action is required by NHSBSA.

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

Complaint summary

Mrs N is complaining that NHSBSA say she is not eligible for Special Class Status (SCS), because she had a break in pensionable employment of over five years.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr H’s complaint is upheld, and to put matters right Mr Harris should provide a full response to the questions raised by Mr H’s representative regarding his operation of the Plan, and pay Mr H £2,000 to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to him by Mr Harris’s maladministration.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr Y’s complaint is upheld, and to put matters right Fast Pensions should contact Mr Y to clarify his right to access his pension funds and any penalties that apply, and pay him £1,500 to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to him by Fast Pensions’ maladministration. If Mr Y seeks to exercise a valid statutory right to a transfer value from the Plan to a named pension arrangement that is willing to accept it, Fast Pensions should pay the transfer value to that arrangement.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr S’s complaint is upheld, and to put matters right Fast Pensions should assist Mr S in exercising his statutory right to a transfer out if he so wishes, and answer his queries about the Plan. Fast Pensions should also pay Mr S £1,500, to reflect the significant distress and inconvenience caused to him by its maladministration.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Ms M’s complaint is upheld, and to put matters right Fast Pensions should provide a full written response to Ms M’s questions regarding the status and security of the Plan. It should also clarify her right to access her pension fund and any penalties or restrictions that apply, and assist her in exercising her statutory right to a transfer out if she so wishes. Fast Pensions should also pay Ms M £1,500, to reflect the significant distress and inconvenience caused to her by its maladministration.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint Summary

Mrs N is complaining that TP have refused to allow her to commute her pension for a higher lump sum, and disputes whether or not the lump sum application form was completed fully.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld against TP because Mrs N’s application form to commute her pension for a higher lump sum did not contain a completed declaration.  Having treated an incomplete form as a completed declaration amounts to maladministration.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold the Applicants complaints and no further action is required by AXA.

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

Complaint summary

The Applicants have complained that they joined the Scheme largely due to the flexibility option (the Flex Option), which allowed for flexible allocation of funds between members of the Scheme. AXA subsequently withdrew the Flex Option from the Scheme in September 2016.