Subject

Mr and Mrs Johnson’s complaint against HM follows a failure to pay taxes on a plot of land (the land) in the United States, which formed part of their SIPP investments which resulted in the land being repossessed by the regional authority in Florida and then sold. Mr and Mrs Johnson complain that the compensation offered by HM is inadequate and that HM could have taken steps to prevent the land from being sold on.

Subject

Mrs Cowdrey complains that, when she applied to purchase Additional Voluntary Contributions (AVCs) in 2007, she was informed that she could purchase Past Added Years (PAY). After making PAY contributions for 34 months, she was told that she was not eligible for it and her benefits were reduced accordingly.

Complaint summary

Mr Auguste has complained that Ascham Homes Limited (Ascham) improperly rejected his application for early payment of his pension on the grounds of business efficiency.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld against Ascham because its decision was perverse.

Complaint summary

Dr Marchant has complained that an overpayment of pension arose as a result of LSBU incorrectly submitting forms to TP and TP paying his pension incorrectly.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld against LSBU to the extent that they contributed to the situation Dr Marchant finds himself in because they submitted an incorrectly completed form to TP.

Complaint summary

Mr Sheerin has complained that CCC failed to conduct his appeal against the tier of ill health retirement benefits he had been awarded in a proper manner.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld against CCC. They did not reach their conclusions properly in Mr Sheerin’s case.

Subject

Mr Gilliland has complained that NILGOSC refused to award him an ill health retirement pension.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld against NILGOSC because they made their decision following their review of Mr Gilliland’s application for an ill health retirement pension based on an incomplete and insufficient report by Dr Turner and subsequent reports by Dr Maguire and Dr Anderson.

Subject

Mr Hill’s complaint is that the Trustees refused to award him chronic ill health benefits from the Scheme.

The Pensions Ombudsman’s determination and short reasons

The complaint should be upheld against the Trustees because they did not take steps to ensure that they had appropriate evidence upon which to base their decision.

Subject

Mr Townley would like the Trustees to honour the pension statement issued to him in 2006, by Capita, as he took decisions based on the statement, which cannot be reversed.

The Deputy Pensions Ombudsman’s determination and short reasons

The complaint should be upheld against the Trustees because the incorrect statement raised Mr Townley’s expectations and as a result he has suffered distress and inconvenience.

Complaint Summary

Mr Thomas’ complaint against Sippcentre is that they delayed in transferring the SIPP to another SIPP arrangement with Alliance Trust and that their delay caused him financial loss.

Summary of the Deputy Ombudsman’s determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld against Sippcentre because their admitted delay has caused Mr Thomas financial loss over and above the amount they have offered him as compensation.

Subject

Mr Nightingale’s complaint against Kent County Council is that it mis-managed his appeal against the decision not to award him early release of his benefits under the Scheme on compassionate grounds. He is also unhappy with the original decision that was made.

The Deputy Pensions Ombudsman’s determination and short reasons

The complaint should be upheld against the Council as it failed to consider whether an exception to its usual policy should be made in Mr Nightingale’s case.