Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr Y says UKAEA failed to inform him that he had a right to transfer out his benefits at any time before age 59. Mr Y says he did not become aware of the option to transfer until April 2015 – when it was too late. Consequently, he missed the opportunity to consider a transfer and has been financially disadvantaged.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr Y’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 Y has complained about the Trustee’s refusal to issue him with a second Cash Equivalent Transfer Value (CETV), within 12 months’ of a previous request, despite his offer to pay for it. He argues that, by the time he was offered a second CETV, the transfer value had reduced significantly.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr K’s complaint against Hays and Prudential is twofold.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr G complains that Prudential misled him in 1993, when it told him that he was not eligible to purchase Past Added Years (PAY).

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr K is unhappy because an early retirement factor (ERF) has been applied to part of his benefits under the Scheme. As a result, those benefits have been reduced.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr Y’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 Y has complained that Scottish Widows did not follow his instruction and contract him out of the State Second Pension (S2P)

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr N’s complaint and no further action is required by the Employer, the Administrator, or the Trustee.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr Y’s complaint and no further action is required by St Andrew’s.

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

Complaint summary

Mr Y’s complaint concerns St Andrew’s decision to change the way the payment of pension increases from the Scheme are accounted for.