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.

Complaint summary

Mr Savage has complained that his monthly pension payments from the Scheme were wrongly stopped.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld against County Tyre because the limited evidence that has been provided in this case shows that Mr Savage was a pensioner Scheme member in receipt of a monthly pension up until November 2013 and that it should have continued to be paid to him after that date.

Complaint summary

Mrs Young has complained that her application for ill health retirement was not considered properly by Gateshead.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld against Gateshead because they failed to give proper consideration to Mrs Young’s eligibility for ill health retirement benefits under Regulation 20 of the LGPS (Benefits, Membership and Contributions) Regulations 2007.

Summary of the application

The Ombudsman has received a reference of a reviewable matter, following a decision by the Reconsideration Committee of the Pension Protection Fund (PPF) dated 15 May 2013. The referral concerns the calculation of the Scheme’s risk-based levy for the levy year 2012/13, which is a reviewable matter under paragraph 19 of Schedule 9 of the Pensions Act 2004.

Complaint summary

Mr Bax received an estimate of the benefits which might be secured by an incoming transfer payment, but which was in fact overstated. When informed after the transfer value was received of the correct amount of additional benefits, he complained that the respondents refused to grant him the earlier incorrect amount which he says he relied on.

Complaint summary

Miss Bywater has complained that payment of her ill health retirement benefits has not been backdated to the date she left employment and they have not been enhanced. She has also complained that the second stage of the internal dispute resolution procedure was not completed in a timely manner.

Complaint summary

Mr Crossland complains that Omni has refused to act on his request to transfer his benefits out of the Henley Retirement Benefit Scheme (the Henley Scheme).