Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr D’s complaint against the Trust is partly upheld, but there is a part of the complaint I do not agree with.

In my opinion, the Trust are responsible for failing to declare Mr D’s pensionable pay correctly to the Scheme. However, because Mr D had been made aware of their error by the Scheme, I do not consider he can show that he reasonably relied upon the accuracy of the information which the Trust provided when he decided to retire.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr E’s complaint against USS Ltd and the University, 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), USS Ltd shall review its 2008 decision not to award Mr E total incapacity benefits. In addition, it shall pay Mr E £750 for distress and inconvenience.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs S’ complaint against the Trustee 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 Trustee should pay Mrs S the total sum of £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the incorrect information given to her and her late husband.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I partially uphold Mrs E’s complaint and direct Friends Life to pay her £500 in respect of the significant distress and inconvenience she has suffered.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

The complaint made by Mr and Mrs X against HML 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, HML should:

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs D’s complaint against NHSBSA is partly upheld, but there is a part of the complaint that is not upheld. To put matters right, for the part that is upheld, Mrs D should be compensated for the significant distress and inconvenience NHSBSA’s maladministration has caused her to suffer.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr N’s complaint against MFRA is partly upheld, but there is a part of the complaint I do not agree with.  To put matters right for the part that should be upheld, MFRA should pay £500 to Mr N, to compensate him for the significant distress and inconvenience that has been caused to him.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs T’s complaint against Rowanmoor 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,  Rowanmoor should pay Mrs T compensation of £500 for the significant distress and inconvenience caused to her by its failure to ensure that  the only remaining asset of the Scheme, a Spanish property, was insured.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs U’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 Mrs U £500 for distress and inconvenience.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr R’s complaint against PIM is partly upheld, but there are several parts of the complaint I do not agree with.  To put matters right (for the part that is upheld) PIM shall take whatever actions may be required by the SSAS’s bank, to allow PIM to be removed as signatory to the bank mandate.

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

Complaint summary

Mr R complains that PIM has acted in maladministration by refusing to: