Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Longhurst Group’s complaint against TPT 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 TPT shall pay Longhurst Group £2,500 for its extremely poor handling of this case.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

The applicants’ complaint against CB 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) CB should pay £750 for the additional loan interest of £750 that Mr I has incurred.

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

Complaint summary

The applicants have complained that they have been subject to poor administration and negligent advice by CB when purchasing a property for their SIPP.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr M’s complaint against AJ Bell Investcentre 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) AJ Bell Limited should compensate him for any loss of interest, and pay him an award of £500 in respect of the significant non-financial injustice he has suffered.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs D’s complaint against Fidelity 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) Fidelity should, within 28 days, pay Mrs D £400 for the significant distress and inconvenience she has suffered.

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

Complaint summary

Mrs D’s complaints against Fidelity are:

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs N’s complaint is partly upheld and to put matters right SPPA shall pay interest on the refund of contributions in line with Regulation T10(3), and pay Mrs N £500 for significant distress and inconvenience.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I partly uphold Mr G’s complaint and I direct Merton to pay an award of £500 to Mr G for significant distress and inconvenience.

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

Complaint summary

Mr G has said that he is entitled to a refund of contributions from the Scheme, but Merton and PSS dispute this. Mr G is also unhappy that the Respondents do not hold records relating to his pension benefits, and that there were delays in dealing with his complaint.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr N’s complaint against AmTrust 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, AmTrust should pay Mr N £500 in respect of the significant distress and inconvenience that Mr N has suffered and follow the directions in paragraph 28 below.

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

Outcome

1. Mrs Y’s complaint against the Council and TP is partly upheld, but there is a part of the complaint I do not agree with.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs S’ complaint against Aon and Prudential 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) Aon and Prudential should each pay Mrs S £250 for the significant distress and inconvenience caused.

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

Complaint summary

Mrs S has complained that she is in receipt of a lower annuity than anticipated, due to delays on the part of the Respondents.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs N’s complaint against the School 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 School should pay Mrs N £500 for the significant distress and inconvenience caused to her by its mishandling of her case.

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

Complaint summary

Mrs N’s complaint is that she has been refused ill health early retirement (IHER).