Complaint summary

Ms Benker has complained about the decision reached in 2012 not to award her an ill health pension as from 2007, when her employment was terminated.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s determination and reasons

The complaint should not be upheld against GMPF because it has no involvement in deciding as to whether or not Ms Benker meets the criteria for an ill health pension from the Scheme.

The complaint should be upheld against LCRC but only to the extent of non-financial injustice Ms Benker has suffered.

Subject

My Civil Service Pensions (My CSP) provided an incorrect pension quotation on which Mr Hession decided to retire.

Summary of the Deputy Pensions Ombudsman’s determination and reasons

The complaint should be partly upheld against My CSP.  Errors were made when calculating Mr Hession’s final retirement benefits.  Although I am unable to conclude on balance that he would not have retired anyway, the level of compensation for distress and inconvenience should be higher than the sum currently offered.

Complaint Summary

Mrs Horsnell has complained that she was given wrong and misleading advice concerning the tax status of a redundancy payment that was paid into the Scheme.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld to the extent that Mrs Horsnell has incurred some unnecessary fees and distress.  However, she has not suffered a direct financial loss.

Subject

Mr Barnes’ complaint against MyCSP, the Scheme administrator, and his former employer the NPG is that his request to change his election for a refund of contributions to a transfer value to his stakeholder pension plan was refused and he had experienced delays in the process that prevented him from changing his election.

Complaint summary

Ms McLoughlin’s complaints against WYPA, (now known as the Police and Crime Commissioner for West Yorkshire), and WYPF are about:

Complaint summary

Mr Aldridge has complained that City of London failed to inform him that his pension could be affected by his return to work and they are now seeking recovery of the resulting overpayment.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s determination and reasons

The complaint should be partly upheld against City of London because they failed to identify at an early stage that Mr Aldridge had been re-employed.  However, I do not uphold the substantive complaint that they failed to inform him that his pension could be affected by his re-employment.

Subject

Mr Pinkstone has brought complaints to the Pensions Ombudsman Service on two previous occasions. Mr Pinkstone says that the Ombudsman’s directions have not been complied with because his application for ill health retirement was not reconsidered in the correct manner. He also says that LGPS’s internal dispute resolution procedure (IDRP) was not carried out correctly.

Mr Pinkstone’s complaint is against his former employer, the University, and Bradford MDC, who are the administering authority for West Yorkshire Pension Fund (part of LGPS).

Complaint summary

Mr McLaughlin has complained that he was not informed in his award letter that his ill health pension was subject to a periodic review, there is no mention of the need for a  periodic review in the booklet headed “Pensions Choices” (the Booklet) and the Department say they have not breached Rule D.5(2) (a) of the Scheme rules (the Rules).

Complaint summary

Mr McSorley’s complaint about the NIPB, the scheme manager, is that he is not being paid the correct percentage of disablement pension and that the correct percentage should be backdated to 2005, when he first started to receive an injury benefit.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s determination and reasons

The complaint should partly upheld against NIPB because even though they did not deal with Mr McSorley’s original appeal in accordance with the regulations, they did so when they dealt with his second appeal.

Complaint summary

Mrs Conroy has complained that Northumbria Police Service, her previous employer,  refused to allow her to take her deferred pension early. She also complains that they delayed in dealing with her case.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

The complaint should be partly upheld against Northumbria Police Service to the extent that they delayed in dealing with her case and she should be compensated for the resultant distress and inconvenience she suffered.