Complaint summary

Mr Cunningham has complained that his application for the early payment of his deferred benefits on the grounds of ill health has not been considered properly.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld against LPF and SPPA because they failed to consider Mr Cunningham’s application for early payment of his deferred benefits in a proper manner.

Complaint summary

Mr Cowan’s complaint against Teachers’ Pensions and the Council is about the errors that were made in the calculation of his pension benefits. He has also complained about the way his enquiries were handled by Teachers’ Pensions.

Complaint summary

Mrs Wainwright’s complaint is that she has been refused the early release of her deferred pension on grounds of ill health.

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.

Complaint summary

Mr Dodd, a beneficiary as well as a trustee of the Scheme, complains that Mr Bailey refuses to provide him with any information in relation to his entitlements and the Scheme’s current position.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld against Mr Bailey because he has failed to comply with his duties as a trustee under the Scheme provisions and the Occupational and Personal Pension Schemes (Disclosure of Information) Regulations 2013.

Subject

Mr Beach complains that the Authority have incorrectly refused him an injury award from the Scheme.

The Pensions Ombudsman’s determination and short reasons

The complaint should be upheld against the Authority because they relied on a flawed report by the Independent Qualified Medical Practitioner (IQMP).  The basis on which permanent disability was assessed was unclear and the report referred to possible treatments without describing the likelihood of their success.

Complaint summary 

Mrs Wren’s complaint is that she has been refused ill health retirement from the date her employment ended.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld against the Council because they failed to make a proper decision and their administration of the process fell short in several respects.

Subject

Bridge Trustees Ltd complain that two of the previous trustees Mr Burrows and Mr Lloyd authorised the return of £193,010.93 to Pilkington’s Tiles Limited (the Company) and in doing so acted in contravention of the rules of the Scheme and contrary to the interests of the members. As such they have committed a breach of trust and should not be entitled to an indemnity under rule 14.20.

Complaint summary

Mr Hudson has complained that his tax free lump sum was overpaid by PSC (the Administrator / Managers of the Scheme) and he should not have to repay it.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld to the extent that PSC’s maladministration has caused Mr Hudson non-financial loss.

Complaint summary

Mr Sutton has complained that MHA, his former employer, failed to properly consider him for ill health retirement prior to the termination of his employment and incorrectly charged him for medical expenses.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld against MHA because:

• the decision as to whether Mr Sutton  met the requirements of regulation 20 does not appear to have been taken by MHA; and
• MHA incorrectly invoiced Mr Sutton for fees/costs of the IRMP.

Subject

Mr Harrison complains that Prudential refused to act on his request to transfer his benefits from the Scheme to the Cheshire Food Services Pension Scheme.