Ombudsman’s Determination

Mr N’s complaint against Zurich 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, Zurich should pay Mr N £500 for the significant non-financial injustice which he has suffered.

Outcome

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr N’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 N £1,000 for distress and inconvenience.

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

Complaint summary

Mr N believes that the transfer value Aviva have paid does not represent the true value of the Policy.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr N’s complaint against NCC 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) NCC should pay Mr N £500 for distress and inconvenience.

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

Complaint summary

Mr N has complained that NCC have said he is not able to transfer his benefits to another provider.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Dr L’s complaint against NHS Pensions 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) NHS Pensions should compensate her for the non-financial loss she has suffered.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

1. Mr L’s complaint against Equiniti Limited and Lloyds Banking Group Pensions Trustees Ltd is partly upheld, but there is a part of the complaint I do not agree with.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs E’s complaint against Roxburgh and Standard Life 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) she should be compensated for the significant distress and inconvenience their maladministration has caused her to suffer.

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

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, Aviva should compensate him for the non-financial loss he has suffered.

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

Complaint summary

Mr N’s complaint against Aviva and JLT is that his benefits in the Scheme were transferred to the Policy without his consent (or prior knowledge). He says that he has suffered a financial loss as a result of the transfer.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs N’s complaint against MyCSP 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, MyCSP should pay Mrs N £500 for significant distress and inconvenience.

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

Complaint summary

Mrs N’s complaint against MyCSP is about the incorrect information she received in 2006 regarding transferring benefits from a previous pension into the Scheme.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr L’s complaint against the MoD, and Veterans UK 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) the MoD should compensate him for the non-financial loss they have caused him to suffer.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr T’s complaint against the Trustees and JLT 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, JLT shall pay Mr T £500 for the significant distress and inconvenience he has suffered.

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