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’s complaint concerns the Trustees’ decision not to pay the higher cash equivalent transfer value (CETV), Mr Y was quoted in October 2016.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr N’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 N is complaining that the Trustees commuted his benefits to a lump sum in 2015 and he had to return the cheque due to the possible impact on his state benefits.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr I is unhappy that LFRS failed to keep him updated about the process for joining the Scheme. As a result, he has missed the deadline to join and LFRS has said it is not possible to set up his membership now.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr Y’s complaint against Phoenix 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 Phoenix shall pay Mr Y £500 compensation in recognition of the significant distress and inconvenience which he has suffered dealing with this matter.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr N, and the Additional Applicants, have complained that they were not informed, when they joined the Scheme, that they would be contracted out of the State Earnings Related Pension Scheme (SERPS).

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs N’s complaint against Aviva is partly upheld, but there is a part of the complaint I do not agree with. In view of the compensation award already offered by Aviva I will not make an additional award.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr T’s complaint against Zurich is that he was not able to purchase an annuity before it withdrew from the annuity market. Mr T accepts that it is no longer possible for him to have an annuity with Zurich, but that due to Zurich’s failings, by the time he had secured an annuity with another provider, his fund value had decreased.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr D’s complaint against the Trustee is partly upheld, but there is a part of the complaint I do not agree with. In view of the award already offered by the Trustee I will not make an additional award.

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

Complaint summary

Mr D’s complaint is that the Trustee refused to provide him with information and failed to respond to his requests.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr M’s complaint against Prudential is partly upheld. To put matters right for the part that is upheld, Prudential shall pay Mr M £500 in respect of significant distress and inconvenience caused by poor complaint-handling.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr T’s complaint and no further action is required by TP or UoH.

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

Complaint summary

Mr T’s complains that TP and UoH refused to refund his Scheme contributions, made after 1 June 2015, in accordance with the Scheme Rules.