Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr S’ complaint and no further action is required by PP.

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

Complaint summary

Mr S’ complaint is that PP:-

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

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.

Complaint summary

Mrs N’s complaint is that she has been told she is not entitled to pension benefits from her employment up to 1983. She believes that as she turned 26 years old whilst on maternity leave, she is eligible for a preserved pension and so would like her pension benefits paid to her.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr E has complained about the reduction in the value of his benefits under the Scheme and he feels that Phoenix Life has failed to protect the value of his savings. He has complained that his benefits have reduced, despite being transferred to the Pension Income Protector Fund (the Fund).

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr E’s complaint, and no further action is required by BAE or the Trustee.

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

Complaint summary

Mr E’s complaint against BAE and the Trustee is that when the Scheme was divided into two sections in 2016 he was allocated to the Airbus Section instead of the BAE Section. He considers that this compromises the long-term security of his retirement pension and the contingent widow’s pension under the Scheme.

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 is complaining that Aviva sent him incorrect information over a number of years, showing that his normal retirement age was 60, when in fact it was 65.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mrs S disagrees with the level of annual pension she is receiving from ReAssure. She is claiming that the figures provided on the original illustration dated 29 December 1987 do not match the annual pension figure she is currently receiving.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr A’s complaint and no further action is required by the Administrator or BT.

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

Complaint summary

Mr A’s complaint concerns the calculation of his pension benefits in 1989. He believes an incorrect lower final pensionable salary was used to calculate his pension and, this has resulted in him receiving lower benefits than he is entitled to receive.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mrs L’s complaint and no further action is required by Barnardo’s or the Trustees.

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

Complaint summary

Mrs L is complaining that when she was made redundant by Barnardo’s she should have received an enhanced pension from the Scheme under rule 11.2.2.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

The Applicants’ complaint is about the decision of the Trustees to alter the rate of increase of their pension from the Retail Prices Index (RPI) to the Consumer Prices Index (CPI).