Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr N’s complaint is upheld, and to put matters right FP should answer Mr N’s queries about the Plan and assist him in exercising any statutory right to a transfer out of the Plan to a named pension arrangement that is willing to accept it, if he so wishes. FP should also pay Mr N £2,500 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 N’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right Tesla should pay her £500 for the significant distress and inconvenience caused by its maladministration.

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

Complaint summary

Ms N’s complaint is that Tesla failed to pay the compensation it agreed to pay in respect of a previous complaint which she brought to this office, under reference PO-12111.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Ms N’s complaint is upheld and, to put matters right, NHS BSA should (1) reimburse Ms N in respect of any financial loss she has incurred, and (2) pay £500 for the significant distress and inconvenience she has suffered.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs F’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right Prudential should:-

Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint Summary

Ms Y’s complaint is against NHS BSA and concerns its decision to refuse her MHO status from 1992 to 2016.

Ms Y’s complaint against the Trust is that Sheffield Health Authority, Ms Y’s employing authority in the 1990’s, failed to:-

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Ms S’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right the School shall consider Ms S’s ill health retirement pension (IHRP) application again.

The School shall also pay Ms S £500 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by not following the procedure properly.

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

Complaint summary

Ms S’s complaint against the School is that it refused her Tier 1 benefits.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs D’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right the Council shall:

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Miss M’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right the Scheme’s Committee (the Committee), on behalf of the Trustees should reconsider its decision not to pay Miss M a dependant’s pension.

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

Complaint summary

Miss M’s uncle has complained on her behalf because he is dissatisfied that the Committee has not agreed to pay Miss M a dependant’s pension.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs Y’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right Cabinet Office should pay Mrs Y £2,000 to recognise the significant distress and inconvenience she has suffered.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint Summary

Mr Y disagrees with the decision to backdate ill health retirement benefits paid in respect of his late wife only to January 2007. He also disagrees with the decision not to award enhanced benefits.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

The complaint is upheld against TP because it has not considered whether it would be appropriate to exercise its discretion to extend the time limit for an application for ill health retirement benefits.