Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr S’s complaint against the Council and DPP 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 Council shall pay Mr S £500 for the significant distress and inconvenience caused to him in failing to correct its pension records.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr 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 Mr S £2,000 for the significant distress and inconvenience caused by the incorrect information it provided.

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

Complaint summary

Mr S has complained that he was misinformed on when he would be able to take the entirety of his pension benefits on an unreduced basis.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr M’s complaint 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 shall pay Mr M compensation of £1,200 for the significant distress and inconvenience caused to him.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr T’s complaint against the Trust and 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 the Trust should pay Mr T £750 compensation in recognition of the clear distress and inconvenience which he has experienced in having to deal with this matter.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr E’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 shall compensate Mr E for the error it made.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr R’s complaint against the LPFA is partly upheld, but there is a part of the complaint that I do not agree with. To put matters right for the part that is upheld the LPFA shall pay Mr R £1,000.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs L’s complaint is partially upheld against SPF, the administrators of the Scheme, but not against SPPA. To put matters right, SPF should pay £2,000 compensation to Mrs L for the significant non-financial injustice she has suffered.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr S’ complaint against Friends Life 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 Friends Life should pay total compensation of £1,000.

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

Complaint summary

Mr S has complained that Friends Life could not initially trace the Scheme, and that as a consequence of this he received no information regarding his potential retirement benefits.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr F’s complaint against TP 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 Mr F £1,000 for the significant distress and inconvenience he has experienced.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr D’s complaint against Capita 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) Capita should pay interest on the missed annuity payment, and compensate him for the significant distress and inconvenience it has caused him to suffer.

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