Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr Y’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 Y a total of £500 in respect of the significant distress and inconvenience which he has suffered, m which includes the £250 already offered.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr D’s complaint against 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, TP shall pay Mr D £500 for the significant distress and inconvenience he has suffered.

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

Complaint summary

Mr D has complained that funds from his late father’s pension were paid in full to his sister although he was a joint executor to the estate.

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 this situation has caused him.

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

Complaint summary

Mr K’s complaint concerns the Trustee’s decision not to increase his deferred benefits by 50%.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr S’ complaint against 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), TP shall pay Mr S £500, in recognition of the significant distress and inconvenience caused.

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

Complaint summary

Mr S’ complaint is that TP has unfairly deprived him of a spouse’s pension from the Scheme, under regulations that applied to his late wife, Mrs S, from 6 April 1988.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Miss N’s complaint against the USS Trustee and the University is partly upheld in respect of the University but not the USS Trustee; however, there is a part of the complaint I do not agree with. To put matters right for the part that is upheld, the University shall pay Miss N £500 in respect of significant distress, including loss of opportunity and loss of expectation.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Ms T’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 is upheld, NHSBSA should make an award to Ms T in respect of the serious non-financial injustice caused to her.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr S’ complaint against Scottish Widows is partly upheld and Scottish Widows shall pay Mr S £1,000 in respect of the serious distress and inconvenience which Mr S has suffered.

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

Complaint summary

Mr S complains that Scottish Widows have imposed and enforced identity verification requirements that, he says, he is unable to fulfil. As a consequence, Mr S is unable to access the benefits held under the Plans.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs T’s complaint is partly upheld and to put matters right the Trustees and WTW shall award Mrs T £1,000 in recognition of the serious distress and inconvenience which she has experienced dealing with this matter.

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, for the part that is upheld, Aon should make a distress and inconvenience award to Mr N.

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

Complaint summary

Mr N says he was not told that less favourable early retirement factors apply to deferred members. Had he known about the difference in factors, he would have retired immediately on opting out of the Plan.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs E’s complaint against NHS BSA and the Trust 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 Trust shall pay Mrs E £1,000 to recognise the serious distress and inconvenience she has suffered. NHS BSA is not required to take further action.

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