Subject

Mrs Turner complains that she was not paid the 50% widow’s pension she was entitled to and, further, that her widow’s pension was not increased by 3% each year in accordance with her entitlement. She says that arrears have built up which she is owed.

The Pensions Ombudsman’s determination and short reasons

Mrs Turner’s complaint cannot be upheld against L&G. However, Mrs Turner’s complaint can be upheld against PTL, but only to the extent that Mrs Turner has suffered distress and inconvenience as a consequence of PTL’s maladministration, because:

Subject

Mr and Mrs McNee have complained that RBKC and Capita failed to pay the lump sum death benefit payable on the death of their daughter to them, contrary to her expression of wish.

The Pensions Ombudsman’s determination and short reasons

The complaint should be upheld against RBKC because they failed to give proper consideration to Mr and Mrs McNee as potential eligible recipients of the death grant.

Subject

Dr Langdell complains that Abbey Life repeatedly verbally assured him that his tax free cash was in the region of £13,845.6. However, he was subsequently paid around £7,800. He also says that they failed to follow his instructions regarding the set up of his pension benefits, given that he had stated that if he was to receive less than £13,845.61 of tax free cash, he did not wish to receive his pension benefits at that time.

The Deputy Pensions Ombudsman’s determination and short reasons

The complaint should be upheld against Abbey Life because they:

Subject

Mr Watts’ complaint against Equitable Life and the Cabinet Office, the administrators and managers of the Scheme respectively, is that delays were caused in the transfer of his AVC funds to Legal and General causing him a financial loss.

Subject

Miss Thomas has complained that the NHS BSA have not considered her eligibility for a permanent injury benefit (PIB) in a proper manner.

The Pensions Ombudsman’s determination and short reasons

The complaint should be upheld against the NHS BSA because they failed to provide Miss Thomas with any reasoning for their decision.

Subject

Mrs York disagrees with the decision not to award her Tier 1 benefits on her retirement on the grounds of ill health.

The Pensions Ombudsman’s determination and short reasons

The complaint should be upheld against Hertfordshire because they failed to make a determination under Regulation 20(2) of the Local Government Pension Scheme (Benefits, Membership and Contributions) Regulations 2007 in a proper manner.

Subject

Mr Underwood complains that due to administrative failures he was unable to actively manage his investments in his pension plan for over six months. He subsequently moved his business to another provider. Mr Underwood would like the penalty waived and Aegon to compensate him for a proportion of the investment losses over the period his account information was unavailable.

Subject

Mr Davies has complained that his eligibility for payment of benefits under either Regulation 19 or Regulation 30 has not been properly considered. He has also complained that LCC took an excessive amount of time to consider his case under the internal dispute resolution (IDR) procedure.

Subject

Mr Rourke complains that delays on the part of AEGON in effecting a partial disinvestment of the Plan’s assets in order to secure an enhanced medical annuity of £7,200 pa with Just Retirement resulted in the annuity purchase price increasing from £99,865 to £101,390.

He also says that he has suffered distress and inconvenience dealing with this matter for which he would like to be suitably compensated.

Subject

Mr Schorah has complained that his application for the early payment of his preserved benefits on the grounds of permanent incapacity has not been properly considered.

The Deputy Pensions Ombudsman’s determination and short reasons

The complaint should be upheld against Veterans UK because they failed to consider Mr Schorah’s application for the early payment of his preserved benefits in a proper manner, including failing to address errors and ambiguities in the medical evidence.