Subject

Ms Nowacka’s complaint is that Xafinity Paymaster refunded her PCSPS contributions instead of transferring her entitlement to the New Police Pension Scheme (NPPS).

The Pensions Ombudsman’s determination and short reasons

The complaint should be upheld. Ms Nowacka received confusing correspondence and her home address was not used. In consequence Ms Nowacka missed the opportunity to transfer her entitlement to NPPS.

Subject

Mr Leaning has complained that his eligibility for ill health retirement benefits has not been properly assessed. He is of the opinion that he should have been awarded Tier 1 benefits rather than Tier 3. Mr Leaning says that failure to properly assess his eligibility for benefit has caused him great stress.

The Deputy Pensions Ombudsman’s determination and short reasons

The complaint should be upheld against NLC because they failed to consider Mr Leaning’s eligibility for benefit under Regulation 20 in the proper manner.

Subject

Mr K has complained that his eligibility for ill health retirement benefits has not been properly considered. He disagrees with the decision to pay him Tier 1 benefits.

The Pensions Ombudsman’s determination and short reasons

The complaint should be upheld against Veterans UK because they failed to give proper consideration to Mr K’s eligibility for Tier 2 benefits.

Subject

Mr Hargreaves’ complaint is that he was incorrectly informed by his employer that he had been automatically entered into the Scheme in April 2008. They then deducted pension contributions from his pay between April 2008 and July 2012 when it was discovered that he had not actually been entered into the Scheme, having opted-out previously, and thus did not accrue any pension entitlement for that period. Mr Hargreaves asks to be compensated for the loss of pension benefits he says he has suffered.

Subject

Mr Harris has complained that Aviva have not permitted him to receive the value of the Policy at age 60.

The Pensions Ombudsman’s determination and short reasons

The complaint should be upheld against Aviva. The Policy, whilst it does not properly deal with the circumstances that have arisen, should be construed in such a way as to allow the payment of a pension from age 60.

Subject

Mr Bent is making an application on behalf of the executors of the estate. Mr Bent complains that NHS Pensions and BCUHB incorrectly paid the death gratuity payable in respect of a deceased former member of the Scheme, Miss Brenda Davies, to Miss Davies’ long-term partner, Mr J. Mr Bent complains that the death gratuity should have been paid to Miss Davies’ estate.

The Pensions Ombudsman’s determination and short reasons

The complaint should be upheld against NHS Pensions because they provided misleading information.

Subject

Mr X’s complaint is that Imperial Trustee Services Limited, the trustees of the Capita Oak Pension Scheme (the Capita Oak Scheme), have refused to act on his request to transfer out of the Capita Oak Scheme.

Outcome

The complaint is upheld against Imperial Trustee Services Limited on the grounds that Mr X would have been entitled to transfer out of the Capita Oak Scheme on formal request, and the only reason he did not make such a request was that Imperial Trustee Services Limited did not reply to him.

Complaint summary

Mr Cole’s complaint which is against Albion and Legal & General is about the inability to trace his entitlement under the Plan. Effectively, Mr Cole’s complaint is that he has accrued no benefit in respect of contributions paid in the period May 2008 to the end of February 2010.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s determination and reasons

The complaint should not be upheld against Legal & General because they were not sent the necessary documents by Albion to set up a pension arrangement for Mr Cole.

Subject

Mr Lambert has complained that HCC have declined to grant him 10 years’ additional pensionable service. He has complained that they have failed to exercise their discretion in a proper manner.

The Deputy Pensions Ombudsman’s determination and short reasons

The complaint should be upheld in part against Hertfordshire County Council because they failed to consider whether there were exceptional circumstances which warranted the exercise of their discretion under Regulation 12.

Subject

Mr Finney’s complaint against Scottish Life is that they provided him with incorrect policy valuations. He asks that they honour the value they had led him to believe that he had since 2008.

The Deputy Pensions Ombudsman’s determination and short reasons

The complaint should be upheld against Scottish Life because they underpaid the transfer value that was due and have also sent Mr Finney a number of erroneous statements over the years. However Mr Finney has no entitlement to a transfer value greater than that which was available under the Plan.