Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mrs M has complained that, as a deferred member, she was provided with incorrect advice on how to claim her NHS pension at age 55 and that as a result she took several steps that she otherwise would not have done.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr I has complained that MyCSP has refused to issue him with a cash equivalent transfer value (CETV) to enable him to transfer his PCSPS benefits into a SIPP.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Ms S’ complaint and no further action is required by BAHS.

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

Complaint summary

Ms S’ complaint is that she has been refused ill health early retirement (IHER).

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Dr Y’s complaint and no further action is required by the Authority.

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

Complaint summary

Dr Y’s complaint arises because the Authority rejected his application for a disablement gratuity from the Scheme.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr T has complained that he received information which led him to believe he would receive a higher pension when he reached retirement age.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr D’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 D complains that the Trustees improperly reduced the cash equivalent transfer value (CETV) available to him from the Plan by £223,043.51 in November 2016.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr N has complained that errors were made concerning the revised commutation factors issued by GAD in April 2011. He considers that the errors relate to when the factors were prepared, how often they were prepared and how they have been implemented.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Ms S’ complaint and no further action is required by RBWM or WBC.

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

Complaint summary

Ms S’ complaint is that jointly the Councils have refused the early release of her deferred pension benefits on the grounds of ill health.

27Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr and Mrs E have complained that Sanlam have failed in its duty of care to them as beneficiaries of the SIPP by:

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr T is unhappy because HSC has refused to grant him Mental Health Officer (MHO) status for the period 1984 – 1993. The effect of this is that he has not accrued sufficient pensionable service as an MHO in order to retire early without a reduction to his pension benefits.