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).

Subject

Mr Milne’s complaint is that he has suffered a loss as GAD:

Complaint summary

Mr Evans complains that his fellow trustee, Mr Robert Evans, has failed to co-operate with requests to sign a form which would enable him to transfer his pension benefits to another company.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld against Robert Evans because:

Complaint summary

Miss Dando has complained that MyCSP and the Cabinet Office have refused to pay a serious ill-health commutation lump sum from the Scheme to her late mother’s estate.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld against MyCSP because but for their maladministration, Miss Dando’s mother’s application to commute her pension on grounds of serious ill-health would have been processed before her death.

Complaint summary

Mrs O’Connor has complained that her eligibility for ill health retirement under Regulation 20 of the LGPS (Benefits, Membership and Contributions) Regulations 2007 was not properly considered by BWDBC.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld against BWDBC because they failed to consider whether Mrs O’Connor should receive benefits under Regulation 20 in April 2011 in a proper manner.

Complaint summary

Mr K has complained that his eligibility for Tier 2 benefits under Rule D.6 of the AFPS 05 Rules has not been considered properly.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld against Veterans UK because they relied on a report from their medical adviser when it was not clear that he had correctly interpreted Rule D.6.

Complaint summary

Dr Millar complains that: