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.

Subject

Mrs Harris complains that:

Complaint summary

Ms Thomson complains that the Council did not consider her applications for ill-health early retirement from deferred LGPS membership and for early retirement on compassionate grounds.

The Deputy Pensions Ombudsman’s determination and short reasons

The complaint should be upheld against the Council because Ms Thomson was not given an opportunity to consent to release her medical records so that her ill-health application may be reconsidered.

Complaint summary

Mr Morton’s complaint against Alliance and Curtis Banks is that he has suffered a financial loss as a result of their failings with regard to the transfer of funds.

 Summary of the Ombudsman’s determination and reasons

The complaint should not be upheld against Alliance because they were not involved in the sale of the Marlborough holding or the purchasing of iShares.

The complaint should be upheld against Curtis Banks because there were delays on their part in the sale of the Marlborough holding and the purchase of iShares.

Complaint summary

Mr Houghton and his wife, Dr Houghton, complain that Fidelity, the transferring scheme manager, and EBS, the receiving scheme administrator, arranged the transfer of the fund value without authority of their own accord and as cash, not in specie as intended.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld against EBS because they sent a letter that Fidelity reasonably understood as a request for a cash transfer.

Complaint summary

Mr X has complained that the Council have not properly considered his eligibility for ill health retirement.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld against the Council because they failed to consider Mr X’s eligibility for benefits under Regulation 20 in a proper manner; in particular, they failed to make a decision under Regulation 20(1).

Complaint summary

In essence, Mrs Greene’s complaint is that she has been refused ill health retirement from the date her employment with the Council ended.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld because the Council failed to obtain the information they needed to reach a properly informed decision.

The complaint is not upheld against SYPA.