Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Dr L’s complaint against NHS 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) NHS Pensions should compensate her for the non-financial loss she has suffered.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

1. Mr L’s complaint against Equiniti Limited and Lloyds Banking Group Pensions Trustees Ltd is partly upheld, but there is a part of the complaint I do not agree with.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs E’s complaint against Roxburgh and Standard 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 is upheld) she should be compensated for the significant distress and inconvenience their 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 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.