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.

Subject

Mr Trebilcock complains that Friends Life have refused to allow him to transfer from another scheme into what they describe as the Milestones Plan.

The Pensions Ombudsman’s determination and short reasons

The complaint should be upheld against Friends Life because the Terms and Conditions of the Scheme are contractual and state that he can make a transfer payment from another scheme at any time and there is no reason that the transfer in should be separated out from his existing membership of the Scheme.

Subject

Mrs Francis has complained that the Council, the managers of the Scheme, have failed to grant her Tier 1 ill health benefits in a timely manner.

The Pensions Ombudsman’s determination and short reasons

The complaint should be upheld against the Council because Mrs Francis could have been awarded her Tier 1 benefits considerably earlier than she was. The decision was improperly made twice in 2011.

Subject

Mr Anderson complains that NCC, as Administering Authority of the Scheme, delayed carrying out the review of his ill health pension appeal. In particular, Mr Anderson says that maladministration led to unacceptable delays and he is due compensation for financial loss and distress and inconvenience.

Subject

Miss Gallon has complained that the respondents have refused her request for payment from service (as opposed to from deferment) of her pension on the grounds of ill health and, in particular, that following her medical on 4 May 2010 for ill-health retirement she was not put on any tier in accordance with the Council’s pension policy.

Subject

Mr Gooch complains that LV= have failed to disclose the information they relied on, and the reasoning, for their decision not to award death benefits to him. He says that he has a legitimate interest and there may have been maladministration in the decision of the N M Pensions Trustees Limited (the Trustee).

Subject

Mrs Gordon-Smith has complained that Veterans UK provided incorrect information in connection with her divorce.

The Deputy Pensions Ombudsman’s determination and short reasons

The complaint should be upheld against Veterans UK because Mrs Gordon-Smith’s pension credit pension should not have been reduced.

Subject

Mrs Perrett has complained that as a result of RBS Group Pension Services (GPS), the scheme administrator acting on behalf of the Trustees, providing inaccurate and misleading information she opted out of the Scheme thereby losing the option to elect Voluntary Early Retirement (VER) to her financial detriment.