Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr N’s complaint against Royal London 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) Royal London should pay Mr N £500 compensation for the significant distress and inconvenience caused to him by their admitted failing in this case.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr N’s complaint against Dengie is partly upheld. To put matters right (for the part that is upheld) Dengie should, within 28 days, provide Mr N with a Special Member Letter setting out all the Scheme benefits to be provided to him as set out in his letter of 16 May 2016.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint Summary

Mr L has complained that NHS BSA has failed to identify errors in its calculation of the cost of reinstating his late wife’s (Mrs L) part-time service in the Scheme. Specifically, Mr L says that information relating to Mrs L’s hours worked on which NHS BSA has based its reinstatement offer is incorrect. Mr L also submits that the dates of Mrs L’s employment are incorrect.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr Y’s complaint against SCC and LBRC 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) LBRC should pay Mr Y £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to him.

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

Complaint summary

There are two parts to Mr Y’s complaint, which are:

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Ms E’s complaint against Thames Valley Police 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) Thames Valley Police should pay Ms E £750 for distress and inconvenience.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

 Complaint Summary

Miss E’s complaint against MyCSP and the Cabinet Office is about the calculation and payment of her benefits under PCSPS and CSCS, and the subsequent mismanagement of her complaint.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s decision and reasons

The complaint should be partly upheld against MyCSP because:

• of the delay in paying Miss E the compensation lump sum due to her under CSCS; and
• of mismanagement of her complaint.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Dr A’s complaint against BSL 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), BSL should pay £750 to Dr A for the 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

Mr R’s complaint against Fidelity 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), Fidelity should make a further compensation payment to Mr R to reflect the distress and inconvenience he suffered as a result of the maladministration identified.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr H’s complaint against Barclays 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) Barclays should pay £1,000 to Mr H.

My reasons for reaching this decision are explained below.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr E’s complaint against LCC 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) LCC should pay Mr E £750 in recognition of the non-financial loss he has suffered.

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

Complaint summary

Mr E is complaining that LCC: