Complaint summary

Mr Bower has complained that Aegon applied a penalty charge to the value of his fund when it was transferred to a new Aegon pension arrangement. He was not told beforehand that a charge would apply and he asserts that the transfer value quoted should be honoured in the new plan.

Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

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

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

Complaint summary

Dr D has complained that she was told, in November 1996, that the Policy was fully portable and could be altered without charge.  However, Friends Life is now seeking to apply surrender charges for transferring the Policy.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr A has complained about the high fee AL will charge him if he transfers the benefits in the Plan into his Self-Invested Personal Pension (SIPP) before his selected retirement date.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr I has complained about the service he has received from City Trustees and disputes the fees he has been charged. The three specific issues raised in his initial complaint were that City Trustees had:

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr Y’s complaint and no further action is required by 20- 20 and Aegon

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

Complaint summary

Mr Y’s complaint against 20-20 (then known as Alexander Forbes Trustee Services Limited) is about the deductions for legal fees from the Scheme’s residual funds.

Mr Y’s complaint against Aegon is for applying a discontinuance charge to the Scheme, and also against 20-20 for deducting it from the Scheme’s residual funds.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint Summary

Mr and Mrs N complain that James Hay, in their capacity as trustees of the Plan and intermediate landlord of the commercial property held in it:

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr T’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right Stadia should provide him with a pro-rata refund of the annual management fee for 2016/17 and pay him £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its maladministration.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Ms R’s complaint and no further action is required by AJ Bell and Halifax.

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

Complaint summary

Ms R has complained about:-

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr S’s complaint against LV= 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, LV= should arrange to pay Mr S £500 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to him by the maladministration identified.

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

Complaint summary

Mr S contends that the administration charges which the current SIPP administrator LV= has levied are unfair because:

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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