Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr N’s complaint and no further action is required by Aviva.

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

Complaint summary

Mr N has complained that Aviva have refused to honour the contract he has for pension increases at 5% a year to be applied to the pension.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mrs S’ complaint and no further action is required by TP.

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

Complaint summary

Mrs S has complained because she disagrees with the amount of overpaid pension TP says she received and should repay.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr M’s complaint and no further action is required by PSA or the Trustees.

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

Complaint summary

Mr M has complained that he is receiving a lower pension than he was expecting.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mrs L’s complaint and no further action is required by MP.

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

Complaint summary

Mrs L’s complaint is that she believed she was making contributions to an additional voluntary contribution (AVC) plan from 1994, but MP has said these were in fact contributions towards additional widower’s pension benefits.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Miss O’s complaint and no further action is required by James Hay.

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

Complaint summary

Miss O has complained about a number of administrative errors on the part of James Hay, and the delays in completing a transfer-out of the Scheme which she says has caused a financial loss.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr H’s complaint and no further action is required.

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

Complaint summary

Mr H says he was randomly allocated to ‘Section C’, the gas distribution business, when the Scheme was sectionalised. It does not relate to the part of the business that he last worked in. His pension benefits could be adversely affected in future as they are now less secure.

Ombudsman’s Determination

I do not uphold Mrs L’s complaint and no further action is required by NHS BSA.Outcome

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

Complaint summary

Mrs L is unhappy because NHS BSA has declined her application for Permanent Injury Benefit (PIB), which she believes she is entitled to under the Scheme.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr E’s complaint and no further action is required by the Trustees.

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

Complaint summary

Mr E has complained that the Trustees failed to make him aware of the consequences of paying the maximum level of contributions into the Scheme.

Ombudsman’s Determination

 Complaint Summary

Mr S has complained that Royal London has incorrectly interpreted the terms of the Policy in respect of the benefit payable to him. Specifically, Mr S says the Policy clearly states that, from age 60, it would pay an annuity per year of £2,127, “exclusive of profits”. He takes this wording to mean that profits would be added to, and therefore increase, the basic annuity.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr D’s complaint and no further action is required by the Council.

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

Complaint summary

Mr D says his pension was overpaid by £1,963 as a result of Council’s delays and mistakes in implementing his pension sharing order (the PSO). He does not believe that he should have to repay this amount.