Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

Complaint summary

Mr S has complained that the property assets held in the Plan have been mismanaged by Curtis Banks, which has resulted in a loss of rental income for the Plan.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Miss L’s complaint and no further action is required by NEST.

Complaint summary

Miss L has complained about the delay she experienced when she took her benefits.

Miss L has also complained that she is unhappy with how her complaint has been handled. Miss L has said that the stress caused by this complaint has had an adverse effect on her health, causing asthma and panic attacks.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr T’s complaint against Hartley 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), Hartley shall pay Mr T £500 for the significant distress and inconvenience he has experienced.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint Summary

Mrs H has complained that the Council failed to carry out proper due diligence before it transferred her benefits from the Fund to The Focusplay Retirement Benefits Scheme (the Scheme). Mrs H is concerned that her entire pension fund may have been lost or misappropriated.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

The complaint shall be upheld against the Council because it failed:

to consider correctly whether or not Mrs H had a statutory right to a transfer; and

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

Complaint summary

Mr E’s complaint is that Fidelity refused to allow him to re-invest dividend income into the SIPP when he ceased to be a UK resident, due to cross border regulations.

Fidelity also required him to sell partial shares held in the SIPP, following amendments to its terms and conditions (Terms and Conditions) and to retain the proceeds in cash, instead of re-investing them in the SIPP.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr N’s complaint and no further action is required by Mercer or the Trustee.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr E’s complaint against AJ Bell 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, AJ Bell shall pay Mr E £500 for the significant distress and inconvenience caused.

Complaint summary

Mr E has raised a series of concerns about the way AJ Bell has administered the SIPP, including:-

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr R’s complaint and no further action is required by Mercer or the Trustee.

Complaint summary

Mr R has complained that his pension was suspended. This was due to him not responding to a letter that was sent by Mercer.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Ms R’s complaint against Aviva 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) Aviva shall pay Ms R £1,000 for the serious distress and inconvenience this situation has caused.

Complaint summary

Ms R’s complaint concerns the customer service she received from Aviva. She is unhappy with its delay in following her instructions and, also with the way it has dealt with her complaint. She believes Aviva’s actions amount to maladministration.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mrs L’s complaint and no further action is required by Ulster Bank.

Complaint summary

Mrs L has complained about the circumstances around her retirement. She has raised the following complaints:-