Complaint Summary

Ms Bennett has complained that:

• she should have been advised of the option of a pension transfer from her previous pension arrangement when she started employment with Chester & Halton Community NHS Trust in 2000; and
• she should have been informed that there was a time limit of 12 months for her to make an application for a transfer on public sector transfer club (Transfer Club) terms; and
• NHSBSA has failed to allow her a transfer calculated on Transfer Club terms.

Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

I agree that part of Mrs M’s complaint against NHS Pensions should be upheld, but there is a part of the complaint I do not agree with. The complaint is partly upheld and to put matters right NHS Pensions should pay Mrs M £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by their maladministration.

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

Complaint summary

Mrs M has complained that NHS Pensions issued an incorrect retirement estimate and she decided to retire based on the incorrect figures .

Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

I agree that part of Mr N’s complaint against AEGON should be upheld, but there is a part of the complaint I do not agree with. To put matters right, AEGON shall pay Mr N £1,000 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to him by delay in authorising his instructions and £199.90 for the “loss interest” on the £20K transferred to the Barclays Wealth brokerage account in September 2012.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs N’s complaint against NHS BSA is partly upheld. To put matters right (for the part that is upheld) NHS BSA should decide whether Mrs N should be granted the opportunity to request a reassessment for a Tier 2 pension within three years of the existing Tier 1 award.

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

Complaint summary

Mrs N’s complaint is that she has been refused Tier 2 ill health pension benefits.

Outcome

I do not uphold Mrs Y’s complaint against NHSBSA and no further action is required by NHSBSA.

Mrs Y’s complaint against the Trust is partly upheld, but there is a part of the complaint I do not agree with. To put matters right (for the part that is upheld) the  Trust should pay Mrs Y £500 compensation in recognition of the clear distress and inconvenience which she has experienced in having to deal with this matter.

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

Complaint summary

Mrs Y complains that:

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs K’s complaint against NHS Pensions is partly upheld, but there is a part of the complaint I do not agree with. To put matters right (for the part that is upheld) NHS Pensions should pay Mrs K £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I agree that part, but not all, of this complaint should be upheld. To put matters right NHS BSA should pay Ms P £500 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by providing misleading information in their email of 29 April 2015.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs D’s complaint against Veterans UK is partly upheld, but there is a part of the complaint I do not agree with. To put matters right (for the part that is upheld) Veterans UK should pay Mrs D an additional £250 for non-financial injustice.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs S’s complaint against TP and The Manchester College is partly upheld, but there is a part of the complaint I do not agree with. To put matters right (for the part that is upheld) TP should pay Mrs S £350 and The Manchester College should pay Mrs S £250.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr N’s complaint against Aviva is partly upheld. To put matters right, in 28 days from the date of this determination, Aviva should pay Mr N £1,990.24 which includes:

• £1,676.69, representing loss of tax free cash;
• £13.55 which is the difference between £277.42 (the original calculated loss) and £290.97 (the correct calculated loss); and
• £300 being the remaining amount to be paid for distress and inconvenience.

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