Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint summary

Mr N’s complaint is summarised as follows:

HM told him he would receive a return of GBP £6,238.00 from his investment in the “USD Absolute Macro Diversified Fund” (Absolute Fund). When his funds were disinvested, he actually received an uncrystallised funds pension lump sum (UFPLS) of GBP £3,376.75. He believes that HM’s explanation of this difference is inadequate and he is entitled to the shortfall.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Ms R’s complaint and no further action is required by NHS BSA

Ms R’s complaint against NHS BSA 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 BSA should pay Ms R £500 for the significant distress and inconvenience that she has experienced.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

 Complaint Summary

Mrs H’s complaint against NHSBSA is about the decision that she was not eligible to take her benefits early under the Special Class Status (SCS) terms of the Scheme. Her complaint against  STH is that they gave her misleading information about her entitlement to continuing SCS status while on secondment on which she relied when deciding to retire.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I partly uphold Ms D’s complaint.

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

Complaint summary

Ms D is complaining that AH, the Fund administrators paid her an incorrect lump sum and pension. She says that she relied on the incorrect figures when deciding to retire at age 55. Ms D has agreed to repay the part of the cash sum that she was not entitled to. However, she contends that she should be entitled to the incorrectly quoted pension of £5,534.69 per annum.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr Y’s complaint against Hornbuckle 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) Hornbuckle should conduct a loss assessment and also pay Mr Y £500 as compensation for the significant distress and inconvenience suffered.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs Johnson’s complaint against Redbridge is partly upheld.

To put matters right within 21 days Redbridge should provide Mrs Johnson with an apology and £500 for the distress and inconvenience she has suffered.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr S’ complaint against NHSBSA 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), NHSBSA should pay Mr S £1,000 for the significant distress and inconvenience caused by its maladministration.

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

Complaint summary

Mr S has complained that:

Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint Summary

Mr and Mrs N complain that James Hay, in their capacity as trustees of the Plan and intermediate landlord of the commercial property held in it:

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Ms E’s complaint against Teachers’ 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, TP shall pay Ms E compensation of £500 for the significant non-financial injustice she has suffered.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint Summary

Mr H has complained that the School, which is an independent school, promised to maintain his membership of the Scheme at the time of his appointment in September 2011, but failed to do so even though it deducted employee contributions from his pay.

Mr H says that the offer of Scheme membership was central to his decision to accept the post and formed part of his contract of employment.