Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr L’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 should pay Mr L £600 in recognition of the significant distress and inconvenience caused.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

Complaint summary

Mr N has complained that the Scheme administrator told him he would receive payment of a lump sum when he reached aged 55 on 22 May 2017. He booked a holiday in expectation of receiving payment of the lump sum on this date. When it was not paid on 22 May 2017, Mr N had to cancel and rebook his hotel and flights.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint Summary

Mr Y complains that RMSPS MT is improperly refusing to pay a full deferred pension to him on retirement from the RMSPS. He says that RMSPS MT is only prepared to pay him the Guaranteed Minimum Pension (GMP) which he accrued in the RMSPS from March 1979 to April 1986 as notified by HMRC National Insurance Contributions Office (NICO) during a GMP reconciliation exercise.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr R’s complaint and no further action is required by RBS, the Trustee and Towers Watson.

Complaint summary

Mr R maintains that his retirement was grossly mishandled. As a result of the delays and service issues, he had to use his savings and was denied access to his lump sum.

Mr R says that 75% of his lump sum was earmarked to repay his fixed rate mortgage, which was due to expire on 30 September 2017. He also suffered a loss of interest on the balance of his lump sum of £85,000.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold complaint and no further action is required by Aviva.

Complaint summary

Mr N has complained that Aviva has not backdated his annuity to the Plan’s Normal Retirement Date (NRD).