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.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr Y’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right Littlebrook should pay £4,201.36 into the pension plan.

Littlebrook should also pay £1000 to Mr Y as compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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 Trustees or P&G.

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

Complaint summary

Mr H’s complaint is about: (1) the annual increases applied to his pension since April 2015; (2) the delay in providing the calculations he requested in June 2015; and (3) the handling of his complaint by the Trustees and P&G.