Universities Superannuation Scheme (PO-3949)

Complaint summary

Dr Naylor has made the following complaints against the University:
1. The University initially refused to process her ill-health application and said that the application form should be submitted after she had left employment which would have significantly reduced the pension (due to it being based on part-time service).
2. The University accepted the application before she had left employment but the short timescale involved meant the specialists had “no time” to write a detailed report, as the specialist did not see her medical records, which resulted in the application being unsuccessful.
3. The University has failed to acknowledge that the reason she left employment was due to ill-health/incapacity.
The following complaint against USS:
4. Following a successful appeal against USS’s original decision to refuse ill-health retirement from the University, she should receive the pension she would have been awarded if the original application in February 2011 had not been rejected (i.e. future service credit should not be reduced for part-time service).
And the following complaint against the University and USS:
5. She has ended up paying a lot more tax than she would have done if the pension issue had been resolved earlier.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons
The complaints against the University should not be upheld as it was reasonable for them to conclude that Dr Naylor’s contract of employment was terminated due to redundancy and not incapacity at the time that she left service.
The complaint against USS should also not be upheld as they would only be able to award Dr Naylor an ill health pension based on full time service if the University were to confirm that the reason she left employment was incapacity.  I also find that it was Dr Naylor’s decision to delay payment of her pension and USS, or the University, cannot be held responsible for any income tax consequences that may follow from that decision.