Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr S’s complaint is upheld against Kuhrt Leach LLP, also referred to as K L Pensions Administration Services. To put matters right Kuhrt Leach LLP should provide a full written response to Mr S’s questions regarding his Scheme funds, including the current value, and to assist him in exercising his statutory rights. Kuhrt Leach LLP should also pay Mr S, £1,000, to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to him by their maladministration. 

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr D’s complaint is upheld against Prudential but not Aon and to put matters right, Prudential should pay Mr D:

• the current value of his AVC fund  entirely as a tax free lump sum; and
• £500 in recognition of the out of pocket expenses and the distress and inconvenience which he has suffered dealing with this matter.

My reasons for reaching this decision are explained in more detail below.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Dr N’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right, NHSBSA and her previous employer, NHS England, should each pay Dr N £500. This is to compensate her for the significant distress and inconvenience caused through errors made by NHS England over a three year period, and NHSBSA’s failure to notify her of the error.

My reasons for reaching this decision are explained in more detail below.

Ombudsman’s Determination

 Complaint Summary

Mr Y has complained that he was improperly refused a total incapacity pension.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld against NGF Europe Limited (NGF) because it misdirected itself when making its decision.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint Summary

Mr N complains that Kuhrt Leach LLP failed to respond to his enquiries about his Scheme benefits, leaving him unable to plan for his future, access his Scheme benefits or exercise his transfer rights.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld against Kuhrt Leach LLP because they failed to respond to Mr N over a prolonged period of time, regarding his Scheme benefits. This constitutes maladministration, which has caused him significant distress and inconvenience.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr S’ complaint is upheld to the extent that he has suffered distress and inconvenience and, to put matters right, Aviva should pay him an additional £300, bringing the total compensation to £500.

My reasons for reaching this decision are explained in more detail below.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr Y’s complaint is upheld against FPOL. To put matters right it will contact Prudential to obtain a calculation of the difference in the value of the Plan, had Mr Y’s funds been invested as he requested. FPOL are then to pay the difference into Mr Y’s new plan (as the Plan with Prudential is now closed) in accordance with my directions set out in paragraphs 26 and 27 of this determination.

My reasons for reaching this decision are explained in more detail below.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr T’s complaint is upheld, but only in respect of the significant distress and inconvenience caused to him by TP’s admitted failings in this case. To put matters right TP should pay Mr T £750 compensation.

My reasons for reaching this decision are explained in more detail below.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr S’ complaint is upheld and to put matters right the Service shall consider wholly afresh whether Mr S is entitled to an injury award and pay Mr S £500 for the significant distress and inconvenience caused.

My reasons for reaching this decision are explained in more detail below.

Complaint summary

Mr S’ complaint is that he has been refused an injury award.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs N’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right NHSBSA should reconsider whether her condition as a result of an incident in 2005 (the Incident) was wholly or mainly due to her NHS employment and, if so, whether she has suffered a permanent loss of earning ability (PLOEA) of more than 10%.

My reasons for reaching this decision are explained in more detail below.