Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr T’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right Fast Pensions should contact Mr T and assist in allowing him to exercise his statutory right of a transfer to a provider of his choice.  Fast Pensions should also pay Mr T, £1,000, to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to him by their maladministration.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint Summary

Mrs W says that NHS Pensions gave her inaccurate retirement estimates when she became 55 up until age 60, her normal retirement age. After receiving notification of the correct award at age 60, she says she was devastated by the realisation that there was a substantial reduction in her Scheme benefits compared to those she expected.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Miss N’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right Fast Pensions should contact Miss N and assist in allowing her to exercise her statutory right of a transfer to a pension provider of her choice.  Fast Pensions should also pay £1,000 to Miss N to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to her by their maladministration.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr E’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right, the Administrator, on behalf of the Trustees, should calculate the lump sum with interest that would have been payable to Mr E in December 2012. The Trustees should pay the difference between that amount, if any, and the actual amount he received. The Trustees are also liable for any related costs and charges , including (but not limited to) any unauthorised HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) charges, scheme sanction charges and the cost of carrying out the calculation.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr T’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right Fast Pensions should contact Mr T and assist him with exercising his statutory transfer rights, and his transfer application to Hargreaves Lansdown.  Fast Pensions should also pay £1,000 to Mr T, to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to him by their maladministration.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr E’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right the Cabinet Office should review their 2012 decision to backdate his revised award to 2008. They shall also pay him £500 for distress and inconvenience.

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

Complaint summary

Mr E has complained that he has not been awarded level 1 injury benefits backdated to January 1997.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr D’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right the Trustee shall pay the cost of making good the financial loss Mr D has suffered.

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

Complaint summary

Mr D says the Trustee excessively delayed the processing of his completed AVCs paperwork. He says this held up his annuity purchase, depriving him of income, and by the time his annuity purchase could be completed, the annuity rate had dropped.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr E’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right Mr Farren, as Pensioner Trustee of the Scheme, should provide a full written response to Mr E’s questions regarding his Scheme funds, including the current value, and to assist him in exercising his statutory rights. He should also pay Mr E, £1,000, to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to him by his maladministration. 

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs S’ complaint is upheld and to put matters right Fast Pensions should provide a full written response to Mrs S’s questions regarding the status and security of the Plan.  They should also clarify her right to access her pensions fund and any penalties that apply, and assist her in exercising her statutory right to a transfer if she so wishes.  Fast Pensions should also pay Mrs S £1,000, to reflect the significant distress and inconvenience caused to her by their maladministration.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs R’s complaint is upheld in part to the extent that this matter has caused her significant distress and inconvenience. To put matters right, DDC should pay Mrs R £500 compensation for the non-financial injustice identified.

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

Complaint summary

Mrs R’s complaint against DDC and KCC concerns DDC’s decision to refuse Mrs R’s application for the early payment of her deferred pension benefits under regulation 30(2) of the LGPS Regulations 2007.