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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs S’ complaint against NHS BSA 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, the Employer shall pay Mrs S £1,000 for causing serious distress and inconvenience. NSH BSA is not required to take further action.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr N’s complaint against FL 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) FL shall establish what units the monetary amount would have bought with Mr N’s new provider on 6 July 2015 and compare it to the actual units purchased when the monies were received in Mr N’s account on 3 December 2016. If the resultant amount is lower, this additional amount should be sent to Hartley for further investment.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr D’s complaint against NEST 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, NEST shall pay Mr D £500 for the significant distress and inconvenience caused.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs H’s complaint against the Committee and RPMI 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 Committee RPMI shall pay Mrs H £1,000 for serious non-financial injustice.

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

Complaint summary

Mrs H has complained that she has never received payment of a pension she became entitled to on the death of her husband.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr N’s complaint against the Trustee and the Administrator 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 shall reconsider its decision whom to distribute death benefits to and pay Mr N £1,000 in respect of his distress and inconvenience. The Administrator is not required to take further action.

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