Ombudsman Determination

Outcome

Mrs N’s complaint is upheld, and to put matters right Hargreaves Lansdown should review again its decision to pay all the lump sum death benefits to Miss A and none to Mrs N.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mrs H has complained that she did not receive a spouse’s pension from the Scheme following the death of her late husband in May 2014. (Furthermore, Mrs H says she has no recollection of her late husband ever receiving a pension benefit from the Scheme when he reached Normal Retirement Age (NRA) 65, on 5 February 1997.).

Complaint summary

Miss C’s complaint against the Employer and the Trustees is about their decision on the death in service benefits under the Scheme following the death of Mr Paul Bien.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s decision and reasons

The complaint should be upheld against both the Employer and the Trustees because they both misinterpreted the Rules, and the Employer failed to make sufficient enquiries before deciding who Mr Bien’s relatives and dependants were.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mrs N’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

Mrs N’s complaint is about the way the Trustee decided to distribute the lump sum death benefit.

Ombudsman’s Determination

 Complaint Summary

Mrs L and Mr H have complained that Mr Dutton misappropriated benefits due from the Plan on the death of their brother Mr S.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld against Mr Dutton because he refused to allow Mr S to transfer his preserved benefits, ignored Mr S’ wishes as well as the Plan Rules and statutory requirements, and improperly shared out Mr S’ fund between Manflex Limited and its employees.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr N’s complaint and no further action is required by the Council and the Agency.

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

Complaint summary

Mr N’s complaint, against the Council and the Agency, is about the death benefit that was paid to him in respect of his late wife’s entitlement under the Scheme.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mrs H’s complaint, and no further action is required by KCC or KFRS apart from the payment of lump sum compensation that KCC has already offered to Mrs H.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr S’ complaint is upheld to the extent that he has suffered distress and inconvenience and, to put matters right, Aviva should pay him an additional £300, bringing the total compensation to £500.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr T’s complaint is upheld, but only in respect of the significant distress and inconvenience caused to him by TP’s admitted failings in this case. To put matters right TP should pay Mr T £750 compensation.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr H’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 H complains that the Trustee incorrectly exercised its discretion by not awarding any death benefits to him.