Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr N’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right Wesleyan Assurance Society should provide confirmation of the final fund values of the Plans and pay Mr N £1,000 for the significant distress and inconvenience he has suffered.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Ms S’ complaint is upheld and to put matters right LBWF should ask Capita, or the new administrators of the Scheme, to recalculate, and then backdate Ms S’ pension, taking into account her higher salary from 2008 before she was redeployed into a lower grade.

In addition, LBWF should provide Ms S with an explanation as to why the original quotation for her original lump sum was much higher than the actual amount.

Ombudsman’s Decision

Complaint summary

Mr O has complained that the reason given for leaving his employment has been recorded incorrectly and as result Mr O has not received an unreduced pension.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s decision and reasons

The complaint should be upheld against Capita because based on the evidence available, Mr O left employment by mutual consent on grounds of business efficiency and therefore falls within the scope of Regulation 30(7) of the Local Government Pension Scheme Regulations 2013.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Ms S’ complaint is upheld and to put matters right the Trustee and DTL should provide a full response to the questions raised by Ms S, and pay her £1,000 each to reflect the significant distress and inconvenience caused to her by their maladministration. If Ms S wishes to exercise her statutory right to a transfer value from the Scheme to a named pension arrangement that is willing to accept it, the Trustee and DTL should pay a transfer value to that arrangement.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint Summary

Mr D is complaining that Carillion failed to action his requests to allow the purchase of Added Pension in the PSCPS. As a result, there was a delay in the payment of his benefits.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld against Carillion because it failed to act on Mr D’s instructions and process his pension benefits within a timely manner.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs K’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right the Council should consider Mrs K’s ill-health pension application again.

The Council shall also pay Mrs K £500 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by not following the procedure correctly and the consequential delay.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr N’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right Friends Life should pay to his drawdown fund a sum representing the difference between the investment return that would have accrued had it completed the transfer in a timely manner and the investment return that has actually been achieved. Friends Life should also provide Mr N with a refund of the portion of the final annual administration fee that has not already been reimbursed.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs D’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right the Council should reconsider Mrs D’s application for ill health retirement, and award her £500 for the significant distress and inconvenience suffered.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs R’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right the Governors should pay employer’s contributions to the TPS to cover the period 1 April 2000 to 31 August 2001, together with interest. They should also pay Mrs R £500 for distress and inconvenience.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr N’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right Chartwell should within 14 days provide Mr N with the information he has requested. It should also pay Mr N £2,000 for the significant distress and inconvenience he has experienced.

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