Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I agree that part, but not all, of this complaint should be upheld. To put matters right for the part that should be upheld, Skipton BS and the Skipton Trustee shall jointly pay £1,000 to Mr Y, in recognition of the serious distress and inconvenience that has been caused.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Ms N’s complaint against the Cabinet Office 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), MyCSP shall pay redress in respect of the financial loss, and make a distress and inconvenience award to Ms N.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr R’s complaint against JLT 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) JLT should make an award to Mr R in respect of the non-financial injustice caused to him.

Complaint summary

Mr R complains that:

JLT contributed to the delays in him taking court action to amend an earmarking order.

JLT delayed acting on his request to draw his pension, causing the value of his pension to fluctuate.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr S’ complaint is partly upheld. On the recommendation of one of our Adjudicators, the Trustee has paid Mr S a suitable award for the non-financial injustice caused, and so I make no further directions.

Complaint summary

Mr S has complained that the Trustee changed the Scheme benefits calculation method after he agreed to take voluntary redundancy (VR).

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Ms N’s complaint against Redbridge 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), Redbridge shall pay Ms N £500 for the significant non-financial injustice which she has suffered.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs N’s complaint against the Council 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 shall pay Mrs N £500 in recognition of the significant distress and inconvenience caused.

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 £1,000 for the significant distress and inconvenience that it has caused him.

Complaint summary

Mr S complains that TP poorly handled his request to convert his Accrued Incapacity Benefits (AIB) to Total Incapacity Benefits (TIB).

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr L’s complaint against the Trustee.

Mr L’s complaint against the Company 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 will pay £500 to Mr L to recognise the significant distress and inconvenience it has caused him.

Complaint summary

Mr L’s complaint is that the Company did not permit him to take an unreduced Cash Equivalent Transfer Value (CETV).

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr S’ complaint against the Trustees is partly upheld, but there is a part of the complaint I do not uphold. To put matters right (for the part which is upheld), the Trustees shall review their decision not to waive the early payment reduction in Mr S’ case.

Complaint summary

Mr S has complained that the Trustees have declined to pay his deferred pension early on the grounds of ill health. He has also complained that the Trustees have not “inflation-proofed” his Guaranteed Minimum Pension (GMP).

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs K’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) within 21 days of the date of this Determination, the Trustee shall pay £1,000 to Mrs K, in recognition of the serious distress and inconvenience caused by HSBC A & C Ltd.