Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mrs D’s complaint and no further action is required by WYPF or City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council.

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

Complaint summary

Mrs D has complained that when she joined the Scheme, administered by the WYPF, on two separate occasions, the guides provided to her did not provide information on the fund’s investments.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Dr S’ complaint and no further action is required by NHS Business Services Authority.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr N says Phoenix Life ought to have made it clear in 2011 that it would not be paying any terminal bonus at that time or in the future. Mr N says Phoenix Life must have been aware at the time that a terminal bonus would not be paid but deliberately gave misleading information.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Miss R has complained that Suffolk Life acted negligently when arranging her SIPP (a self-invested personal pension) and the property investment within it. This error went undetected for two years, has resulted in no rent being paid and she has been unable to make further payments into the SIPP until the issue is resolved.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr H is complaining that Fidelity, as the administrators of the Plan, told him that he could extend the transfer closure deadline and only after the deadline had expired was he told this was incorrect.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint summary

Mr N’s complaint is summarised as follows:

HM told him he would receive a return of GBP £6,238.00 from his investment in the “USD Absolute Macro Diversified Fund” (Absolute Fund). When his funds were disinvested, he actually received an uncrystallised funds pension lump sum (UFPLS) of GBP £3,376.75. He believes that HM’s explanation of this difference is inadequate and he is entitled to the shortfall.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr S’ complaint and no further action is required by the Trust.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr N’s complaint is about the way Standard Life takes charges for the management of his SIPP from his bank account.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Ms T’s complaint and no further action is required by the Trustees or the employer.

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

Complaint summary

Ms T’s complaint is that she and her husband have lost out financially, as a result of relying on incorrect pensions statements for their retirement planning.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr Y’s complaint is upheld against Fidelity only. To put matters right, Fidelity should pay £6,275.69 into Mr Y’s Self Invested Personal Pension (SIPP) in recognition of the transfer value he has lost due to Fidelity’s maladministration. Fidelity must also pay him £500 in recognition of the significant distress and inconvenience it caused.

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