Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs N’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right Teddy should establish whether the contributions deducted from Mrs N’s salary were paid into the Scheme. If they were not, Teddy should ensure all of the unpaid contributions are paid into the Scheme. It should also pay an amount equal to the notional fund value had the contributions been paid when they should have been. Teddy should also pay Mrs N £2,500 for the significant distress and inconvenience caused by its maladministration.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint summary

Mr A complains that the Authority is not treating certain elements of his pay as He believes this is contrary to the 2006 Scheme rules, as set out in The Firefighters‘ Pension Scheme(England) Order 2006 (the Rules).

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr S’ complaint is upheld against the Trustees and to put matters right the Trustees will remit Mr S’ case to a new Occupational Health Physician (OHP) for further consideration.

In addition, the Trustees should pay Mr S £500 in recognition of the significant distress and inconvenience caused.

The complaint against JLT is not upheld and no further action is required.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr R’s complaint is upheld, and to put matters right the Trustee shall comply promptly with any CETV request that Mr R makes, and offer him a transfer in cash or in specie or a mixture of both, whichever the Trustee considers most appropriate bearing in mind the Plan’s current assets and the amount of the CETV net of any early exit penalty that is applicable to him at that time, as set out in the agreement that Mr R signed in 2013.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs N’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right the Council shall consider Mrs N’s ill health retirement pension (IHRP) application again.

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

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

Complaint summary

Mrs N’s complaint against the Council is that she has been refused IHRP from deferred status.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

The Estate’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right NHS Pensions shall decide  whether or not Mrs E satisfied the tier 1 or tier 2 condition as at the date her employment with Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Health Board (ABMU) ended.

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

Complaint summary

The complaint against NHS Pensions is that it has refused to pay a commuted ill health retirement benefit to the Estate of the late Mrs E.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr E’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right AJ Bell shall carry out a financial loss calculation in order to provide Mr E with fair redress. AJ Bell shall also pay Mr E £500 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 E complains that AJ Bell did not properly process a contribution he made to the SIPP, resulting in a loss of investment opportunity.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr T’s complaint is upheld, and to put matters right the Trustee shall comply promptly with any CETV request that Mr T makes, and offer him a transfer in cash or in specie or a mixture of both, whichever the Trustee considers most appropriate bearing in mind the Plan’s current assets and the amount of the CETV net of any early exit penalty that is applicable to him at that time, as set out in the agreement that Mr T signed in 2012.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint Summary

Ms Y has complained that the Trustees have failed to implement her pension sharing order.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld against the Trustees because they have not implemented the pension sharing order.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs L’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right NHS BSA shall reconsider Mrs L’s eligibility for PIB.

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

Complaint summary

Mrs L has complained that her application for a Permanent Injury Benefit (PIB) has not been considered in a proper manner.