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.

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%.