Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint Summary

Mr E has complained that BCC and the College are not willing to honour the pension which was promised to him when he agreed a severance package with the College on 16 September 2014.

Mr E says, but for these pension figures, he would not have accepted the severance package offered to him.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld against the College because:-

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr M’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right the FBU should pay him a lump sum equivalent to the difference between the lump sum he was paid at retirement and the lump sum he would have received had the appropriate commutation factors been available at the time.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr S’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right KTL should pay £1,000 compensation for the significant distress and inconvenience it caused.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs S’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right SRM should pay to the Plan £25,000 plus an amount representing the investment return that could reasonably have been obtained on that sum if it had been invested in the Plan in March 2016, and pay Mrs S £2,500 for her significant distress and inconvenience.

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

Complaint summary

Mrs S’s complaint is that SRM failed to pay contributions to the Plan for her as had been agreed.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint Summary

Mrs N’s complaint, against the College, the School and TP is that she is unable to access her pension benefits from the Scheme which were accrued between 2001 and 2002 because there is no record of her 2001 election to join the Scheme.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld against the College but not against the School or TP because:

Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint Summary

Mrs T’s complaint, in her capacity as the executor of her late husband’s estate, is that Mr T was incorrectly refused ill health retirement when his employment ended in 2011.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

The complaint should upheld against the Council as it failed to make a properly informed decision on Mr T’s ill health application.

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:-