Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr N’s complaint is partly upheld, but there is a part of the complaint I do not agree with. To put matters right, Aviva should compensate him for the non-financial loss he has suffered.

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

Complaint summary

Mr N’s complaint against Aviva and JLT is that his benefits in the Scheme were transferred to the Policy without his consent (or prior knowledge). He says that he has suffered a financial loss as a result of the transfer.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs N’s complaint against MyCSP 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, MyCSP should pay Mrs N £500 for significant distress and inconvenience.

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

Complaint summary

Mrs N’s complaint against MyCSP is about the incorrect information she received in 2006 regarding transferring benefits from a previous pension into the Scheme.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr L’s complaint against the MoD, and 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) the MoD should compensate him for the non-financial loss they have caused him to suffer.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr T’s complaint against the Trustees and JLT 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, JLT shall pay Mr T £500 for the significant distress and inconvenience he has suffered.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr S’ complaint against LBWF 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, LBWF should pay Mr S compensation for the significant distress and inconvenience caused to him by its mishandling of his case.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs K’s complaint against HCC 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, HCC shall pay Mrs K £500 for the significant distress and inconvenience she has experienced.

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

Complaint summary

Mrs K complains about the decision HCC has made regarding the tier of ill health early retirement (IHER) pension she is entitled to.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr S’ complaint against the Authority 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 Authority should pay Mr S £500 for the significant distress and inconvenience it caused.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr K’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 Mr K £500 for the significant distress and inconvenience it caused him.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr E’s complaint against the Trustee and 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, the Trustee should pay Mr E an award of £500, in addition to the £500 that he has already received, in respect of the significant non-financial injustice he has suffered.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr N’s complaint should be partly upheld in that RMSPS should write off the overpayments which are subject to a limitation defence. RMSPS is able to recover the overpayment which occurred from 13 March 2011 onwards.

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

Complaint summary

Mr N is unhappy that RMSPS mistakenly paid him a pension, which it is now asking him to repay.