Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mrs E has complained that HSC have not granted her Mental Health Officer (MHO) status for the period of 1994 to present. The effect of this is that she has not accrued sufficient pensionable service as an MHO in order to retire early without a reduction to her pension benefits.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mrs R’s complaint and no further action is required by LPFA and UACES.

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

Complaint summary

Mrs R brought the complaint to this Office on behalf of the late Mr R’s estate. Mrs R’s complaint against LPFA and UACES is the following:-

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mrs N’s complaint and no further action is required by the Trustee.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr S’ complaint and no further action is required by Equitable Life

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

Complaint summary

Mr S has complained that Equitable Life transferred the Plans to a fraudulent pension scheme, the Salmon Enterprise (UK) Pension Scheme (the Salmon Scheme), and he has subsequently lost his entire pension.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr N’s complaint arises because he considers the Trustees calculated his pension benefits incorrectly.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint Summary

Mr N has complained that the Trustee has incorrectly interpreted the rules relevant to his application for ill health early retirement (IHER) from Early Leaver status.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

The complaint should not be upheld against the Trustee because it has correctly applied and interpreted the rules in relation to Mr N’s application for IHER.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr R’s complaint and no further action is required by the Company or the Trustee.

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

Complaint summary

Mr R has complained because he is dissatisfied with the Pension Increase Exchange option (PIE) that he was offered, and subsequently accepted, from the Company.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr Y says he was allocated to a section of the Scheme unrelated to the business area he was working in when he retired. The allocation methodology used by the Trustee, when sectioning the Scheme, seems illogical, random and completely flawed. His pension benefits could potentially be less secure in future.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr N complains that the Trustee caused a delay in him receiving his pension benefits from the Fund.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr G is unhappy because TP is attempting to recover an overpayment of £7,327.20 from him. Mr G received this overpayment as part of his benefits from the Scheme between February and December 2014.