Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr G has complained:

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mrs E’s complaint and no further action is required by Trustees of the Unilever UK Pension Fund or Unilever plc.

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

Complaint summary

Trustees of the Unilever UK Pension Fund have provided a joint response on behalf of both respondents. As such, I will refer to both respondents collectively as “Unilever”.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr N’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right Wesleyan Assurance Society should provide confirmation of the final fund values of the Plans and pay Mr N £1,000 for the significant distress and inconvenience he has suffered.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr Y’s complaint and no further action is required by B&CE Financial Services Limited.

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

Complaint summary

Mr Y has complained because the Trustees of the Scheme have not agreed to pay him a lump sum benefit from the Scheme.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mrs G’s complaint and no further action is required by the Fund.

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

Complaint summary

Mrs G has complained that the Fund did not provide her with her correct entitlement options when she retired in 2015 and that she has now been denied access to a ‘trivially commuted’ lump sum payment.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr Y’s complaint and no further action is required by the Trustees.

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

Complaint summary

Mr Y’s complaint arises because the Trustees rejected his application to access his Scheme pension before his Normal Pension Age (NPA) at “preferential”, rather than cost-neutral, reduction factors.

Outcome

1. I agree that the complaint should be upheld against the NCA and to matters right within 28 days the NCA should:

• reconsider Mr Y’s application for a deferred pension and provide an explanation of the decision; and
• award Mr Y £500 for the distress and inconvenience he has suffered.

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

Complaint summary

3. Mr Y has complained that the NCA said he is not able to remain in employment and receive a deferred pen

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mrs N’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

Mrs N’s complaint concerns NHS BSA’s decision regarding her eligibility for preserved pension benefits.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mrs Y’s complaint and no further action is required by the Trustee.

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

Complaint summary

Mrs Y’s complaint concerns the Trustee’s decision not to pay her a spouse’s pension as an unauthorised lump sum payment.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr N’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right Mr Garner should pay the transfer value, mitigate any investment losses and pay Mr N £500 to recognise his significant distress and inconvenience.

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

Complaint summary

Mr N is complaining that Mr Garner and Liddell Dunbar have delayed the transfer of his benefits out of the Scheme.