Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr T’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right Mr Howard shall sign the relevant change of address, share indemnity and investment transfer documents that are required to facilitate Mr T’s transfer from the Scheme into his self-invested personal pension (SIPP).

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr N’s complaint is upheld against Prudential only and to put matters Prudential should calculate the current value of the cash equivalent transfer value of £2,727.02 assuming that it had been paid into the Plan on 29 July 1992 and then transfer this amount to Mr N’s current pension arrangement administered by AEGON.

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

Complaint summary

Mr N complains that either:

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr T’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right Stadia should provide him with a pro-rata refund of the annual management fee for 2016/17 and pay him £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its maladministration.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr H’s complaint is upheld, and to put matters right Mr Harris should provide a full response to the questions raised by Mr H’s representative regarding his operation of the Plan, and pay Mr H £2,000 to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to him by Mr Harris’s maladministration.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint summary

Mr A has complained that the Council, his former employer, is wrongfully withholding his pension benefits.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld against Enfield Council because the legislation in question does not allow for them to withhold Mr A’s pension rights, in the manner they have.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr Y’s complaint is upheld, and to put matters right Fast Pensions should contact Mr Y to clarify his right to access his pension funds and any penalties that apply, and pay him £1,500 to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to him by Fast Pensions’ maladministration. If Mr Y seeks to exercise a valid statutory right to a transfer value from the Plan to a named pension arrangement that is willing to accept it, Fast Pensions should pay the transfer value to that arrangement.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr S’s complaint is upheld, and to put matters right Fast Pensions should assist Mr S in exercising his statutory right to a transfer out if he so wishes, and answer his queries about the Plan. Fast Pensions should also pay Mr S £1,500, to reflect the significant distress and inconvenience caused to him by its maladministration.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Ms M’s complaint is upheld, and to put matters right Fast Pensions should provide a full written response to Ms M’s questions regarding the status and security of the Plan. It should also clarify her right to access her pension fund and any penalties or restrictions that apply, and assist her in exercising her statutory right to a transfer out if she so wishes. Fast Pensions should also pay Ms M £1,500, to reflect the significant distress and inconvenience caused to her by its maladministration.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr H’s complaint is upheld, and to put matters right Fast Pensions should respond to Mr H’s queries about the payment of his pension funds. Fast Pensions should also pay Mr H £1,000, to reflect the significant distress and inconvenience caused to him by its maladministration.

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

Complaint summary

Mr H complains that Fast Pensions has failed to respond to his request to pay his pension benefits.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr T’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right, the University should reconsider the decision it made to grant Mr T tier 3 ill health retirement benefits.

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

Complaint summary

Mr T’s complaint is that he was not awarded tier 2 ill health benefits when he retired.