Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Ms D’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right HFPL shall pay into Ms D’s pension arrangement with Royal London, such amount as is necessary so that her monies in that arrangement is of the same value that it would have been had £415,106 been paid into Ms D’s chosen investment on 8 December 2016, rather than £389,785 which was paid into a separate account and later transferred into her chosen pension arrangement.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr Y’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 should pay Mr Y a total of £500 in respect of the significant distress and inconvenience which he has suffered, m which includes the £250 already offered.

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.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr S’ complaint is upheld and, to put matters right, SJP shall pay him: (i) redress in respect of the lost units he has identified; (ii) interest from date of surrender to date of payment; and (iii) £500 in respect of significant distress and inconvenience.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mrs S’ complaint, and no further action is required by the Trustee or WTW.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr T’s complaint and no further action is required by Prudential.

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

Complaint summary

Mr T has complained that Prudential did not carry out appropriate checks when transferring his benefits from the Plan. His complaint arises as it has transpired that the scheme he transferred into is a pension liberation scheme.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr A’s complaint and no further action is required by Scottish Widows.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr L has complained that ReAssure did not immediately offer the option for him to transfer to a beneficiary drawdown arrangement and that, because of the delay in agreeing and implementing it, he has suffered a financial loss.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr Y has complained because he believes Phoenix has failed to apply annual increases to his annuity. He believes he has incurred a financial loss as a result.