Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr Y’s complaint is upheld, and to put matters right Fast Pensions should contact Mr Y to clarify his right to access his pension funds and any penalties that apply, and pay him £1,500 to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to him by Fast Pensions’ maladministration. If Mr Y seeks to exercise a valid statutory right to a transfer value from the Plan to a named pension arrangement that is willing to accept it, Fast Pensions should pay the transfer value to that arrangement.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr S’s complaint is upheld, and to put matters right Fast Pensions should assist Mr S in exercising his statutory right to a transfer out if he so wishes, and answer his queries about the Plan. Fast Pensions should also pay Mr S £1,500, to reflect the significant distress and inconvenience caused to him by its maladministration.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Ms M’s complaint is upheld, and to put matters right Fast Pensions should provide a full written response to Ms M’s questions regarding the status and security of the Plan. It should also clarify her right to access her pension fund and any penalties or restrictions that apply, and assist her in exercising her statutory right to a transfer out if she so wishes. Fast Pensions should also pay Ms M £1,500, to reflect the significant distress and inconvenience caused to her by its maladministration.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr H’s complaint is upheld, and to put matters right Fast Pensions should respond to Mr H’s queries about the payment of his pension funds. Fast Pensions should also pay Mr H £1,000, to reflect the significant distress and inconvenience caused to him by its maladministration.

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

Complaint summary

Mr H complains that Fast Pensions has failed to respond to his request to pay his pension benefits.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr T’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right, the University should reconsider the decision it made to grant Mr T tier 3 ill health retirement benefits.

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

Complaint summary

Mr T’s complaint is that he was not awarded tier 2 ill health benefits when he retired.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr L’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right the Authority should allow Mr L’s appeal to the Board of Medical Referees (the Board) on the question of whether Mr L has a qualifying injury, as defined by the rules of the Scheme.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs K’s complaint is upheld, and to put matters right Fast Pensions should pay Mrs K the lump sum death benefit of £79,160.94, plus £1,600 for her distress and inconvenience. Fast Pensions should also pay any tax charges that arise due to the late payment of the lump sum death benefit.

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 NHS Pensions shall pay Mrs S £2,000 for the significant distress and inconvenience caused, plus £1,132.71 interest in respect of the return of her pension contributions, and issue any necessary forms to Mrs S to enable her to claim her retirement benefits from age 60. ESHT should refund to Mrs S her pension contributions from 29 September 2001 to 31 March 2015.

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 Fast Pensions should provide Mr E with the information he requested and assist in allowing him to exercise his statutory right to a transfer to a provider of his choice, if he so wishes. Fast Pensions should also pay Mr E £2,000 to reflect the prolonged distress and inconvenience caused to him by its maladministration.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr Y’s complaint is upheld, and to put matters right Fast Pensions should answer his queries about the Plan and assist him in exercising a statutory right to a transfer out of the Plan to a named pension arrangement that is willing to accept it, if he so wishes. Fast Pensions should also pay Mr Y £2,000 to reflect the prolonged significant distress and inconvenience caused to him by its maladministration.

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