Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr Y’s complaint is upheld against ReAssure, but not against Transact.  To put matters right, ReAssure should pay £500 compensation to Mr Y, for the significant distress and inconvenience that has been caused to him.

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

Complaint summary

Mr Y’s complaint about ReAssure (the ceding scheme) and Transact (the receiving scheme), is that they both contributed to delaying the transfer of his funds, which resulted in financial loss to him.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs A’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right, Mr David Ryan should pay to   Mrs A’s GPP the missing pension contributions with interest, and £500 for the significant distress and inconvenience caused.

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 CO should cease the deduction of Employment Support Allowance (ESA) from his Injury Pension and refund to him all ESA deductions that have been made to date, with interest.

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

Complaint summary

Mr E’s complaint is that MyCSP has been deducting an amount equal to his ESA benefit payments from his Injury Pension.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs T complaint is upheld but, because the Council has now agreed to reconsider her application for an ill health pension, the directions I have made are only in respect of compensation for the significant non-financial injustice she has suffered, the time frames to which the Council should act and the review of her benefits, should she be awarded Tier 3 benefits.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs N complaint is upheld and to put matters right Merseyside should pay Mrs N the difference between the pension she is receiving and the pension she was told she would receive.

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

Complaint summary

Mrs N is unhappy because Merseyside provided her with an inaccurate benefits statement, which she relied on before retiring early. In particular, Merseyside led her to believe that her pension benefits would be higher than they were.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr S’ complaint is upheld and to put matters right Chartwell shall provide Mr S with the information he requested.  Chartwell shall also pay Mr S £2,000 in recognition of the significant distress and inconvenience he has experienced.

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

Complaint summary

Mr S’ complaint is about Chartwell’s failure to properly administer the Scheme and its refusal to provide information when requested.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr S’ complaint is upheld and to put matters right BASF should make the discretionary decision afresh, without taking into account Mr S’ pre-employment medical or the questionnaire, and pay Mr S £500 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

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.