Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr N is unhappy because Aviva will not currently pay him benefits from the Buyout plan. This is despite the fact he has reached age 60, and the Normal Retirement Date (NRD), under the Buyout plan.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr H’s complaint and no further action is required by either HCC or HPF.

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

Complaint summary

This complaint concerns HCC’s decision to refuse Mr H’s application for early payment of his deferred pension benefits under regulation 30(2) of the LGPS Regulations 2007.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr R’s complaint against PIM is partly upheld, but there are several parts of the complaint I do not agree with.  To put matters right (for the part that is upheld) PIM shall take whatever actions may be required by the SSAS’s bank, to allow PIM to be removed as signatory to the bank mandate.

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

Complaint summary

Mr R complains that PIM has acted in maladministration by refusing to:

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr G’s complaint and no further action is required by Friends Life.

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

Complaint summary

Mr G has complained:

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mrs E’s complaint and no further action is required by Trustees of the Unilever UK Pension Fund or Unilever plc.

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

Complaint summary

Trustees of the Unilever UK Pension Fund have provided a joint response on behalf of both respondents. As such, I will refer to both respondents collectively as “Unilever”.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr N’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right Wesleyan Assurance Society should provide confirmation of the final fund values of the Plans and pay Mr N £1,000 for the significant distress and inconvenience he has suffered.

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 by B&CE Financial Services Limited.

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

Complaint summary

Mr Y has complained because the Trustees of the Scheme have not agreed to pay him a lump sum benefit from the Scheme.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mrs G’s complaint and no further action is required by the Fund.

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

Complaint summary

Mrs G has complained that the Fund did not provide her with her correct entitlement options when she retired in 2015 and that she has now been denied access to a ‘trivially commuted’ lump sum payment.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr Y’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 Y’s complaint arises because the Trustees rejected his application to access his Scheme pension before his Normal Pension Age (NPA) at “preferential”, rather than cost-neutral, reduction factors.

Outcome

1. I agree that the complaint should be upheld against the NCA and to matters right within 28 days the NCA should:

• reconsider Mr Y’s application for a deferred pension and provide an explanation of the decision; and
• award Mr Y £500 for the distress and inconvenience he has suffered.

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

Complaint summary

3. Mr Y has complained that the NCA said he is not able to remain in employment and receive a deferred pen