Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint Summary

Mr R has complained that Mr Garner and Liddell Dunbar have delayed the transfer of his pension benefits in the Scheme and that the transfer has not been made. Mr R has also claimed consequential losses as a result of the delay.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr N’s complaint against WTW and 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, WTW shall credit Mr N’s self-invested personal pension plan (SIPP) with the net loss he incurred, because of the delay in WTW paying him his retirement benefits.

In addition, the Trustee shall pay M N £2,000, for the severe distress and inconvenience this situation has caused him.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr R complains that SWP is preventing him from transferring out the benefits which he had previously transferred into the Scheme.

Ombudsman’s Determination

I do not uphold Mr L’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.

Complaint summary

Mr L disputes the records held by the Scheme in respect of his benefits. He has requested further evidence to support the records held by the Trustee.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Ms D’s complaint against IFAP is upheld.

To put matters right, IFAP has a joint and several liability, with Halebarns Financial Planning Ltd (HFPL), (see previous Determination PO-20093) to pay into Ms D’s pension arrangement with Royal London, such amount as is necessary so that her monies in that arrangement are of the same value had £415,106 been paid into Ms D’s chosen investment on 8 December 2016.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint Summary

Ms N’s complaint concerns the delay caused by Prudential when processing her transfer request. She had asked for her benefits in the Scheme to be transferred to Computershare Trust Company of Canada, Edward Jones Locked-in Registered Retirement Savings Plan 574-599 (the receiving scheme), but she claims Prudential’s delays prevented the transfer from taking place. As a result, this has caused a loss of investment growth, as well as distress and inconvenience.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr E’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right, Optimum shall pay him £2,000 for the exceptional distress and inconvenience caused.

Complaint summary

Mr E has complained that Optimum has failed to act on his transfer request.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

Complaint summary

Mr K is unhappy that the Trustee has refused to recalculate his cash equivalent transfer value (CETV) on the more generous calculation basis that applied prior to the Fund triggering wind-up.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

Complaint summary

Dr H has complained about the reduction in his cash equivalent transfer value (CETV) from the quotation provided on 4 May 2017 and the subsequent CETV quotation issued on 4 April 2018.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint summary

Mr L has complained that Fidelity delayed the transfer of the SIPP to A J Bell unnecessarily and that this has resulted in a financial loss.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s decision and reasons

The complaint is not upheld against Fidelity as the transfer request should have been submitted to FundsNetwork. Although Fidelity has provided some conflicting information over the transfer process, I do not find it is sufficient to warrant an award to Mr L.