Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint Summary

Mr S says he was given a reasonable expectation that the Scheme would make up any shortfall required to provide his guaranteed minimum pension (GMP) (the Guarantee). He maintains that the Current Trustee is attempting to go back on the Guarantee and deny him his correct entitlement.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs J’s complaint against DWP and 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, DWP should (1) provide MyCSP with correct and up to date information in relation to Mrs J’s Scheme membership, so that MyCSP can provide her with corrected statements and (2) pay Mrs J £1,000 in respect of the serious distress and inconvenience this matter has caused. MyCSP is not required to take further action.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr T’s complaint against Phoenix 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) Phoenix shall pay Mr T £2,000 in recognition of the severe distress and inconvenience which he has experienced dealing with this matter.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint Summary

Ms S has complained that the Trustees and BC have unjustly stepped back from their historic practice of revaluing deferred benefits by 5% per annum.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

The complaint should be partly upheld against the Trustees and BC because:

Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint Summary

Ms H has complained that the Trustees and BC have unjustly stepped back from their historic practice of revaluing deferred benefits by 5% per annum.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

The complaint should be partly upheld against the Trustees and BC because:

Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint Summary

Miss L has complained that the Trustees and BC have unjustly stepped back from their historic practice of revaluing deferred benefits by 5% per annum.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

The complaint should be partly upheld against the Trustees and BC because:

Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint Summary

Ms E has complained that the Trustees and BC have unjustly stepped back from their historic practice of revaluing deferred benefits by 5% per annum.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

The complaint should be partly upheld against the Trustees and BC because:

Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint Summary

Ms H has complained that the Trustees and BC have unjustly stepped back from their historic practice of revaluing deferred benefits by 5% per annum.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

The complaint should be partly upheld against the Trustees and BC because:

Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint Summary

Ms K has complained that the Trustees and BC have unjustly stepped back from their historic practice of revaluing deferred benefits by 5% per annum.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

The complaint should be partly upheld against the Trustees and BC because:

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr Y’s complaint against Railways Pension Scheme is partly upheld, but there is a part of the complaint I do not agree with. To put matters right the Scheme shall award Mr Y £1,000 for the serious distress and inconvenience caused.

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