Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr T’s complaint and no further action is required by L & G.

Complaint summary

Mr T’s complaint is that L & G has closed a range of funds and switched his investments into replacement funds, which he says do not perform as well. Mr T says that L & G has done this to increase its profits and to prevent a selection of funds operated by other providers.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

Complaint summary

Mrs E complains that Aviva’s administrative errors have denied her access to her benefits within the Policy.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr E’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right, Green Coal Limited will respond to Mr E with information about his pension, and pay him £3,000 for the exceptional distress and inconvenience caused to him by its maladministration and failure to respond to his enquiries.

Complaint summary

Mr E is unhappy that he has not been provided with any information on his pension since a year after he transferred into the Scheme.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

Complaint summary

The Company complains that:

• NEST incorrectly reported a payment failure to the Pensions Regulator (the Regulator).
• NEST notified the Company’s employees that the contributions were overdue and refused to resolve the issue.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

Complaint summary

Mr M’s complaint is that Huhtamaki, his former employer, acted unfairly by not inviting him to transfer to the Scheme from its non-contributory money purchase scheme, between 1993 and 2003, when other employees were given this option.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

Complaint summary

Mr L says WTW and the Trustee refused to provide him with a projected illustration of benefits and so he was unable to make an informed decision about his selected retirement date.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint Summary

Mr D has complained that OMW would not pay his remaining tax-free cash lump sum (TFC) and pension by electronic bank transfer to his Australian bank account or to a UK bank account he later opened.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr D’s complaint against Aviva and Curtis Banks 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) Curtis Banks shall remedy the significant non-financial injustice it has caused to Mr D.

Complaint summary

Mr D contends that Friends Life and Curtis Banks were negligent in the administration of his SIPP. They failed to act when the tenant occupying the property, held in his SIPP, defaulted, causing him a financial loss.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr N’s complaint 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) within 21 days of the date of this Determination, Curtis Banks shall pay £500 to Mr N, in recognition of the significant distress and inconvenience caused.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

Complaint summary

Mr H’s complaint is that MyCSP inverse commuted £9,870.73 of his lump sum benefits at final retirement for an additional yearly pension of £620.87. Mr H questions the authority/legality of MyCSP’s action and wants the lump sum paid to him.