Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Ms S’ complaint against NHSBSA and Sussex 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 Sussex should, within 14 days of the date of this Determination, pay Ms S £1,000 for the significant maladministration identified.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs T’s complaint against the Company and the Trustees 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 Company and the Trustees should each compensate Mrs T for the significant distress and inconvenience this situation has caused her.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Ms 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 can be upheld, NHSBSA should pay Ms S £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience she has suffered.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I partly uphold Mr T’s complaint

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

Complaint summary

Mr T’s complaint against Aegon is about the reduced value of his benefits in the Scheme. Mr T says he was not told that his contributions were invested in ‘initial units’, and that Aegon failed to send annual statements which would have alerted him to the decreasing value of his benefits.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr Y’s complaint against USS 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 shall pay £500 to Mr Y.

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

Complaint summary

Mr Y has complained about the misinformation given by USS, the Scheme administrator, which led him to believe he would receive a higher lump sum and pension income.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint Summary

Mr W et al complain that the Authority is not treating certain elements of their pay as pensionable. They believe this is contrary to the 1992, 2007, and 2015, Scheme rules.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs L’s complaint against the Bank and the Trustee is partly upheld, but there is a part of the complaint I do not agree with. In view of the compensation award that the Trustee has offered I will not make a further award.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs P’s complaint against the Council and 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) the Council will pay Mrs P £2,000 to recognise the severe distress and inconvenience caused.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr Y’s complaint against TP and the Employer 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 and the Employer shall each pay Mr Y £250 for significant distress and inconvenience.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr N’s complaint against KMFA 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) KMFA should pay Mr N £500 for significant distress and inconvenience.

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

Complaint summary