Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mrs 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

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr I’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right, James Hay Partnership shall pay Mr I £2,000 in recognition of the significant distress and inconvenience caused.

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

Complaint summary

Mr I’s complaint is that James Hay caused an undue and avoidable delay in the transfer of his pension to a new provider. As a result, Mr I lost the opportunity to invest in the stock market immediately following the Brexit referendum in June 2016.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr Y’s complaint and no further action is required by Texas Instruments.

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

Complaint summary

Mr Y’s complaint is that Texas Instruments:-

Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint Summary

Mr N has complained that the Authority transferred his pension fund to a new pension scheme without having conducted adequate checks in relation to the receiving scheme, and failed to provide him with a sufficient warning as required by the Pensions Regulator. Mr N is concerned that his entire pension fund may have been lost or misappropriated.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

The complaint is upheld against the Authority because it failed:

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr E’s complaint and no further action is required by Sussex Police.

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

Complaint summary

Mr E’s complaint against Sussex Police is that his request to transfer his benefits out of the Scheme and into a Self-Invested Personal Pension (SIPP) was declined as being out of time.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr Y’s complaint and no further action is required the Trustee or the Administrator.

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

Complaint summary

Mr Y has complained that, following a full transfer out of the Scheme, he received information indicating that he retained benefits within the Scheme over an extended period of time.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Miss S’ complaint and no further action is required by the Trustee or Capita.

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

Complaint summary

Miss S has complained that as there was a dispute concerning the Cash Equivalent Transfer Value (CETV), she believes the Trustee should agree to honour the original figures even though the three-month guarantee period had expired.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs N’s complaint against AT 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 AT should pay Mrs N a total of £500 in recognition of the significant distress and inconvenience caused.

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

Complaint summary

Mrs N has complained that AT has unduly delayed her transfer.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mrs N’s complaint and no further action is required by Curtis Banks.

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

Complaint summary

Mrs N has complained that CB did not inform her that a transfer to Hargreaves Lansdown was not able to proceed.