Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mrs S’ complaint, and no further action is required by NHSBSA or the Trust.

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

Complaint summary

Mrs S has complained that her Mental Health Officer (MHO) status has been removed, meaning that if she retires at age 55, she will be subject to an early retirement reduction.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mrs Y’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

Mrs Y’s complaint concerns her being unable to take a lump sum and annuity from the Policy, despite the fact that there are documents from when she first took out the Policy stating that she would be able to.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mrs D’s complaint, and no further action is required by the Council and Teachers’ Pensions.

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

Complaint summary

Mrs D’s complaint concerns her missing Scheme benefits. Mrs D considers that they should have been preserved in the Scheme, as she completed the minimum five years’ qualifying service. Mrs D says that Teachers’ Pensions has a responsibility to establish the day she allegedly was not in pensionable service.

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.