Complaint summary

Mr Lee complains that the trustee failed to act in the best interests of Scheme members, and colluded with AEA Technology plc (AEAT) in putting the company into administration and the Scheme into a Pension Protection Fund (PPF) assessment period.

Complaint summary

Mr Morris’ complaint against the Trustees and Capita is about the winding up of the pension scheme and the financial loss caused by the poor administration of his request to transfer.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s determination and reasons

The complaint should not be upheld against the Respondents because the winding-up of the Scheme was handled appropriately and Mr Morris’ transfer was not subject to delays as a result of any maladministration.

Complaint summary

Mr Lightfoot has made a number of complaints about the way WYPA handled his injury benefit. He says that WYPA:

Subject

Mr Hutchinson complains that Suffolk Life have failed to administer his SIPP properly. In particular, he says that they:

Complaint summary

The Academy was established in 2012. A Transfer Agreement determined the assets notionally transferred to the Academy based on an assessment of the ongoing scheme funding level of active members. The Academy says that this assessment has made it unjustly liable for the funding shortfall for all ex-employees of the predecessor school, even though they were never employed by the Academy.

Complaint summary

Mr Williams has complained that Hornbuckle Mitchell (the Plan’s Administrator) made a number of errors with the administration of his pension which has resulted in unauthorised payments totalling £537,357.08 and a potential additional tax liability for him.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s decision and reasons

The complaint should be upheld because Hornbuckle Mitchell did not:

Complaint summary

Mr Richardson has complained that Carey Pensions were negligent in that they did not carry out proper due diligence with regards to his proposed investment in Green Oil Plantations (GOP).

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

The complaint should not be upheld because it was not Carey Pensions’ responsibility, as trustee and administrator of the SIPP, to carry out the level of due diligence suggested by Mr Richardson.

Complaint summary

Mr N has complained that Stadia failed to undertake the appropriate level of due skill, care and diligence in allowing him to invest his self-invested personal pension plan (SIPP) in African Land.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

The complaint should not be upheld because it was not Stadia’s role to undertake the level of due diligence suggested by Mr N.

Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr T has complained that that Hargreaves Lansdown, the SIPP administrator, started charging for administering his SIPP, when he did not expect to pay any fees.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr H’s complaint is not upheld because there is now no outstanding injustice resulting from the maladministration identified.

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