Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr Y’s complaint and no further action is required by Cabinet Office, and MyCSP.

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

Complaint summary

Mr Y has complained about a change in the Scheme Rules from April 2015, which resulted in pension contributions being calculated as a proportion of monthly income, rather than fixed rate deductions.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

The complaint made by Mr and Mrs X against HML 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, HML should:

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Ombudsman’s Determination

 Complaint summary

Mrs N’s complaint against TP concerns the administrative and procedural problems she experienced in respect of the transfer of her benefits from the Scheme to the University Superannuation Scheme (the USS). In particular her complaint is about:

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Dr N has complained that Fidelity has not provided adequate assurance that a change to the Plan would not entail any additional cost to him.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr S’ complaint is upheld and to put matters right Chartwell shall provide Mr S with the information he requested.  Chartwell shall also pay Mr S £2,000 in recognition of the significant distress and inconvenience he has experienced.

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

Complaint summary

Mr S’ complaint is about Chartwell’s failure to properly administer the Scheme and its refusal to provide information when requested.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

The Applicants’ complaint against Hornbuckle 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) Hornbuckle should pay any penalties imposed by HMRC on the SIPP. Hornbuckle should also award £500 to each of the Applicants to recognise the significant distress and inconvenience caused by its maladministration.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Ms N’s complaint because Cabinet Office recognised what had gone wrong and made what I consider to be an adequate award at the conclusion of the IDRP process.

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

Complaint summary

Ms N has complained about the delays and poor service she experienced when seeking the immediate payment of her pension benefits.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr T’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

Mr T’s complaint concerns the relationship between Suffolk Life and iDealing. Mr T says that he has had to undertake 10 hours of “financial advisor type work” to understand the issue between the two, which he calculates as £100 per hour.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr H complains that NHS BSA has committed a series of errors in relation to his benefits under the Scheme. He believes that the combination of these errors has resulted in him suffering a financial loss.