Subject

Mr Jones has complained that Ealing have failed to fulfil their obligations under Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) (TUPE) legislation and associated statutory provisions with regards to his pension; namely, the , the Code of Practice on Workforce Matters in Local Authority Service Contracts and the Cabinet Office Statement of Practice.

The Pensions Ombudsman’s determination and short reasons

Complaint Summary

Mr Pratt has complained that his application for the early payment of his preserved benefits on the grounds of ill health has been declined.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld against Veterans UK because they failed to consider Mr Pratt’s claim in a proper manner.

Complaint Summary

Mrs Lomax complains that TP, the administrators of the Scheme, are seeking to recover outstanding unpaid employee pension contributions from her (inclusive of interest). Mrs Lomax argues that she should not be required to pay the outstanding unpaid employee pension contributions or the interest that has accrued as a consequence of her failure to pay them to date. Mrs Lomax also complains that she has suffered distress and inconvenience as a consequence of TP’s maladministration.

Complaint Summary

Mrs Bone has complained that the actual transfer value of her pension plan is lower than the value Friends Life originally quoted.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

The complaint is upheld against Friends Life because they were contractually obliged to Mrs Bone to honour the incorrect valuation.

Complaint summary

Mrs Fewings has complained that Capita Hartshead, the former scheme administrator, provided incorrect information resulting in the overpayment of her pension benefits, which she is now required to repay.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld against MyCSP, the new scheme administrator, because Mrs Fewings relied on the overpayment in good faith and changed her position to the extent that it would not be equitable to require her to repay the money.

Complaint Summary

Mrs Roberts has complained that Teachers’ Pensions caused delays and provided incorrect information with regard to her application for Additional Service after Retirement (ASAR) benefits, which resulted in a rejection of her application. She asks that she now be given a backdated award.

Complaint Summary

Mr Jeeva’s complaint is that the Trustee’s decision not to award him retirement benefits on the grounds of ill health was flawed.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld against the Trustee because they failed to apply the Rules correctly in their consideration of the likelihood of Mr Jeeva’s condition being permanent. Furthermore, whilst untried treatment options were identified they failed to properly consider whether Mr Jeeva’s ill-health was likely to improve if those options were undertaken.

Complaint Summary

Mr Long complains that he has suffered a financial loss as a consequence of delays on the part of Fidelity and Towers Watson in effecting a transfer of the pension rights available to him from the BPSS Pension Scheme into the SIPP.

Complaint Summary

Mrs Cole says that she was nominated to receive a pension by her late partner. There is no record of the nomination so the pension has been refused.

Short reasons

Following an oral hearing, the complaint is upheld on the basis that it is more likely than not that the form was completed and sent. Mrs Cole should receive a pension, therefore.

Subject

Mr Jackson has complained that an earnings cap has been applied to his final pensionable pay, thereby reducing the benefits he received. He asserts that he relied to his detriment on incorrect benefit statements which did not apply the cap.