Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr G’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right Stadia shall sign the necessary paperwork to allow the in-specie transfer of assets to @sipp Limited. In addition, for the exceptional distress and inconvenience caused, Stadia should pay Mr G £2,500.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I agree that part, but not all, of this complaint should be upheld. To put matters right for the part that should be upheld, AJ Bell should compensate Mr T for the financial loss he has suffered due to the delay in sending the transfer documents via first class post. No directions are made against the Trustees.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr R’s complaint is upheld, and to put matters right AJB shall compensate Mr R for his financial loss arising between 10 and 24 February 2017, by making an appropriate payment to his new pension plan.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr V’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right Optimum Capita shall:-

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Cdr N’s complaint and no further action is required by Veterans UK.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mrs R’s complaint against Prudential and no further action is required by it.

I uphold Mrs R’s complaint against the Administrator and, to put matters right, it should (1) redress her for loss of potential investment growth associated with the delayed transfer and (2) pay her £500 for significant distress and inconvenience.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr G’s complaint and no further action is required either by the Trustees or by JLT.

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

Complaint summary

Mr G has complained that there was a delay in transferring his benefits, which led to a decrease in the transfer value.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr L’s complaint, and no further action is required by FL.

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

Complaint summary

Mr L’s complaint about FL is that he believes that his benefits under the Plan should attract a higher annuity rate than the one that FL applied to him.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr N has complained that contrary to the assurances he received from the Trustees before requesting a cash equivalent transfer value (CETV) in June 2016, he was not able to request a further CETV on 6 September 2016.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr N’s complaint and no further action is required by Zurich or CB.

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

Complaint summary

Mr N has complained that Zurich/CB has refused to transfer his pension benefits in the SIPP to another provider and as a result he has missed out on the gains he would have made on the investment in the new pension scheme.