Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr N’s complaint against FL 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) FL shall establish what units the monetary amount would have bought with Mr N’s new provider on 6 July 2015 and compare it to the actual units purchased when the monies were received in Mr N’s account on 3 December 2016. If the resultant amount is lower, this additional amount should be sent to Hartley for further investment.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr S’ complaint, and no further action is required by VetsUK.

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

Complaint summary

Mr S’ complaint against VetsUK, the managers of the AFPS, is that they have not allowed him to transfer pension benefits into the AFPS. Mr S says that he was not informed of any changes to the AFPS relating to the timescales within which transfers had to be made.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr R’s complaint and no further action is required by RBS or Liberty.

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

Complaint summary

Mr R is unhappy with the administration of his request to transfer benefits, which caused the transfer value quoted to him to no longer be available.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint Summary

Mr M has complained that Namulas:-

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr N’s complaint concerns the reduction of his cash equivalent transfer value (CETV). He said that he only became aware of the reduction after his benefits were transferred and that failure to notify him and explain the reduction prior to the transfer, amounts to maladministration.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr D’s complaint against the Trustee 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 Trustee shall pay Mr D £500 in recognition of the significant distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of his case.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mrs R’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 R is complaining that she was incorrectly transferred out of the Scheme to a Section 32 Buy Out Policy (the Policy). She had originally assumed that the transfer was a compulsory buy out, but recently discovered that the original transfer form is missing the signature page.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr L’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right Giant shall pay Mr L £2,381.40. in respect of contributions that it failed to transfer into Mr L’s SIPP and £500 for the significant distress and inconvenience which Mr L has suffered.

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

Complaint summary

Complaint against Giant

Mr L says Giant failed to:-