Mr Connell has made two applications in his capacity as executor of the late Mr Edward Goss’ estate (86124/1) and, separately, in his capacity as the Deputy appointed by the Court of Protectio …

Subject

The three applicants complain about the administration of the Scheme by the respondent Trustees, in regard to nine specific issues, listed in this determination.

The Deputy Pensions Ombudsman’s determination and short reasons

The complaint should be partially upheld against Mrs Barrett and the Second Respondent, because:

Complaint summary

Mr Goodwin has complained that Berkeley Burke failed in their duty of care to him in that they did not carry out proper due diligence with regards to his proposed investment in Green Oil Plantations.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s determination and reasons

The complaint should not be upheld because it was not Berkeley Burke’s responsibility, as trustee and administrator of the SIPP, to carry out the level of due diligence suggested by Mr Goodwin.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mrs Y’s complaint and no further action is required by Berkeley Burke

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

Complaint summary

Mrs Y has complained that Berkeley Burke failed to supply her with her client file and failed in their duty of care to her in that they did not carry out proper due diligence with regard to her proposed investment in GFI Teak.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Dr R’s complaint and no further action is required by Universities Superannuation Scheme Limited

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

Complaint summary

Dr R has made the following complaints about USS:

USS has breached an Additional Voluntary Contributions (AVC) added years’ benefits contract which was to secure final salary benefits equivalent to four years’ service.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr E’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

Mr E’s complaint against the Fund is that it has not met its statutory obligations to inform him there was a change to the Scheme, namely a reduction to the late retirement factors.

Had he been aware of the reductions he would have acted to avoid being affected by these changes.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint Summary

Mrs S has complained that she was not awarded an unreduced pension on being made redundant in 2015. She considers this to be contrary to the Scheme rules.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr L’s and the Additional Applicants’ complaints are upheld and to put matters right the Trustees shall comply with the directions set out in paragraphs 230 to 232 of this Determination.

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

Complaint summary

Mr L’s complaint is that the Trustees have: misrepresented the Scheme; mismanaged the funds; issued fabricated benefit statements; and that the funds that he transferred into the Scheme have been lost.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

The complaints brought by Mr D and the Additional Applicants about events which occurred in 2009, have been referred to The Pensions Ombudsman (TPO) outside of the permitted timeframe in which TPO can normally accept a complaint and so are outside of my jurisdiction.

The complaint concerning Tarmac’s delay in dealing with the matter in 2018, is within my jurisdiction, but I do not uphold that complaint and no further action is required by Tarmac.