Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint Summary

Mr D has complained that Kier failed to calculate interest payable as a result of the late payment of his LGPS pension in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld against Middlesbrough because it is responsible for ensuring that Mr D receives the benefits he is entitled to under the LGPS, including any interest due.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr K’s complaint is upheld and, to put matters right, Interactive shall (1) waive or reimburse any costs associated with selling investments in the SIPP, (2) credit the disputed contribution back to the employer’s bank account, (3) credit to the same account, a sum equal to the interest the disputed contribution would have earned had it been cancelled and returned, and (4) pay Mr K £500 in respect of the significant distress and inconvenience this matter has caused.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr N’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right KP shall reconsider Mr N’s application.

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

Complaint summary

Mr N’s complaint against KP concerns its decision to refuse to award him an injury benefit entitlement.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr N’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right Mr Garner should pay the transfer value, mitigate any investment losses and pay Mr N £500 to recognise his significant distress and inconvenience.

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

Complaint summary

Mr N is complaining that Mr Garner and Liddell Dunbar have delayed the transfer of his benefits out of the Scheme.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr Y’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right CSC shall provide additional information to enable Mr Y’s benefits to be calculated correctly. It shall also pay Mr Y £500 for non-financial injustice.

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

Complaint summary

Mr Y has complained that CSC failed to provide the correct information about his pensionable pay to the RPS to enable his benefits to be calculated correctly.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr L’s complaint is upheld, and to put matters right Mr Earle shall pay Mr L £3,000 for the exceptional distress and inconvenience he has experienced.

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

Complaint summary

Mr L has complained that Mr Earle failed to respond to his enquiries about the Scheme, leaving him unable to access his benefits and uncertain over what has happened to these.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr N’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right Aegon shall reinstate payment of his contributions with effect from April 2017.

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

Complaint summary

Mr N has complained that Aegon has ceased to pay contributions under a waiver of contributions (WOC) policy.

Aegon is the brand name of Scottish Equitable plc. Both names are used in this document as appropriate.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs G’s complaint is upheld, and to put matters right the Trustees shall reconsider their decision regarding the distribution of death benefits in respect of the late Mr J and pay compensation to Mrs G for her distress and inconvenience.

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

Complaint summary

Mrs G’s complaint against BW and the Trustees is about their refusal to pay to her all or any of the death benefit that arose in respect of the late Mr J.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint Summary

Mr N has complained that Veterans UK has failed to consider his application for the early payment of his preserved pension in a proper manner.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld against Veterans UK because it failed to explain its decision to Mr N.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint Summary

Mr A has complained that when a pension sharing order on divorce was made against him, KPMG transferred too much money from the Scheme to the pension arrangement of Mrs A, his ex-wife.