Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs S’s complaint is upheld, and to put matters right Phoenix Life should pay her £1,000, including £500 for her distress and inconvenience.

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

Complaint summary

Mrs S’s complaint against Phoenix, the scheme administrator, is that it unreasonably delayed a transfer of her funds to another provider.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr D’s complaint and no further action is required by PP.com.

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

Complaint summary

Mr D has complained that PP.com did not carry out sufficient due diligence to prevent the loss of his pension fund assets.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr R’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 R has complained that Prudential transferred his Scheme account to the Beausale Limited Pension Scheme (the Beausale Scheme) without carrying out sufficient due diligence.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr L’s complaint against LV is that it processed his transfer from the Plan to the Dewshill Pension Scheme (the Scheme) after he had instructed LV not to make such a transfer, and as a consequence his money has been lost.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr Y has complained that BW failed to carry out sufficient due diligence when he transferred £174,000 from the SIPP to the Salmon Enterprises Pension Scheme (the Scheme).

Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint Summary

Mr S has complained that SPPA did not carry out sufficient due diligence checks when he applied to transfer his benefits in the NHS Scheme to the Capita Oak Pension Scheme (the Capita Oak Scheme). If SPPA had carried out sufficient due diligence it would have noted that:

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

Complaint summary

Mr R has complained that Aegon was negligent when agreeing to transfer the benefits in the Plan to the Bovey Cranbrook Retirement Benefits Scheme (the Scheme).

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Miss D’s complaint and no further action is required by Liberty.

Complaint summary

Miss D has complained that Liberty has not been pro-active in completing the sale of her investment in the SIPP resulting in her being unable to access these funds.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr E’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right Liberty shall, within 28 days of the date of this Determination, pay an amount equal to the transferred sum, £18,500, to the SIPP. To compensate Mr E for loss of investment opportunity, Liberty shall add interest at the base bank rate for the time being quoted by the Bank of England for the period from 1 April 2017 to the date of payment inclusive.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr S’ complaint and no further action is required by Standard Life

Complaint summary

Mr S has complained that Standard Life has refused to transfer his pension benefits in the Plan to another provider using due diligence as an excuse.