Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr N’s complaint and no further action is required by Kent Police or the Council.

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

Complaint summary

Mr N argues that his agreement to purchase added years within the Scheme has had no value to him, so he would like a return of his additional contributions.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr E’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 E’s complaint is that MyCSP must abate his Scheme pension while he continues to accrue further benefits in the Scheme.

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’s complaint concerns the reduction of his cash equivalent transfer value (CETV). He said that he only became aware of the reduction after his benefits were transferred and that failure to notify him and explain the reduction prior to the transfer, amounts to maladministration.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr S’ complaint and no further action is required by AFM, Dalriada or Incartus.

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

Complaint summary

Mr S has complained that he has not been able to take his tax free lump sum and that he was not provided with timely information about the change of trustee.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint Summary

Mr H complains that the Council incorrectly decided to award him Tier 2 ill health early retirement (IHER) benefits in the LGPS because he believes that he is entitled to Tier 1 benefits.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

The complaint should not be upheld against the Council because I do not consider that the Council has interpreted or applied the eligibility criteria for Tiers 1 and 2 benefits set out in Regulation 35(5) and 35(6) incorrectly or in a discriminatory manner.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr Y’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 Y has complained that the Trustees have declined to award him a pension on the death of his civil partner.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr E’s complaint and no further action is required by AJ Bell or the Company.

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

Complaint summary

This Office has accepted three complaints brought by Mr E against the Respondents:

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr H’s complaint is about the fees he was charged when transferring his pension fund from Suffolk Life to Interactive Investor. Mr H is dissatisfied as he was charged £1,485.00 for the transfer and was not informed of the charge by Suffolk Life.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mrs L is complaining that she was unfairly deprived of her entitlement to special class status (SCS) in the Scheme, due to changes that were introduced in March 1995, when she was a deferred member.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mrs L’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 L’s complaint is about the payment of death benefits under the Plan of her late husband, Mr L, who passed away on 13 December 2016. She disagrees with the Trustee’s decision not to pay the death benefits to her.