Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mrs R’s complaint and no further action is required by the Trustees as they have offered a sufficient remedy.

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

Complaint summary

Mrs R’s complaint against the Trustees is about their refusal to pay £5,000 to her, which she says they agreed as part of a settlement of a different complaint.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Miss T’s complaint and no further action is required by the Council.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr M’s complaint is that a portfolio of investments in his SSAS was encashed in 2005 without his approval or knowledge. Mr M says the action has caused him a financial loss as some of the investments sold have since substantially increased in value.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr E’s complaint and no further action is required by AJ Bell or the Company.

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

Complaint summary

This Office has accepted three complaints brought by Mr E against the Respondents:

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.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr S’ complaint against Scottish Widows is partly upheld and Scottish Widows shall pay Mr S £1,000 in respect of the serious distress and inconvenience which Mr S has suffered.

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

Complaint summary

Mr S complains that Scottish Widows have imposed and enforced identity verification requirements that, he says, he is unable to fulfil. As a consequence, Mr S is unable to access the benefits held under the Plans.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint Summary

Mr Y has complained about the administration of his Suffolk Life SIPP and issues that have arisen with the property held by it.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld in part. Suffolk Life sent inaccurate information to The Pensions Advisory Service (TPAS) and sent information relating to Mr Y and other clients to incorrect addresses.

The other complaints brought to this Office should not be upheld.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr N’s complaint against Mercer 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), Mercer should pay Mr N £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience he has suffered.

I do not uphold Mr N complaint against PIC and no further action is required by it.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mrs N is represented by Mr M of Broom Consultants Ltd (BC). Mr M says Mrs N’s complaint is that:

She has had a catalogue of mistreatment by HM, culminating in her losing her pension and her pension fund.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint Summary

Servest complains that RL intends to apply a substantial charge in the event the Scheme is discontinued. Servest brings this complaint in its capacity as the employer responsible for managing the scheme.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

The complaint should not be upheld because RL has demonstrated that the contested charge is recoverable under the terms of the policy governing the Scheme.