Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Miss H’s complaint and no further action is required by WYPF.

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

Complaint summary

Miss H has complained that the decision by WYPF regarding the distribution of the death grant payable on the death of her mother has not been properly taken.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Miss N’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

Miss N’s complaint concerns NHS BSA’s decision not to award her an ill health retirement pension (IHRP).

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr 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 S’ complaint is that the Trustee does not agree that he is entitled to an unreduced pension from age 60 in respect of transferred in service from the Ford Pension Fund (the Fund).

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not agree that this complaint should be upheld and in my opinion no further action is required by OCC.

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

Complaint summary

Mr Y’s complaint is that OCC, his employer, has refused his application for Ill Health Retirement (IHR).

Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint Summary

Servest complains that RL intends to apply a substantial charge in the event the Scheme is discontinued. Servest brings this complaint in its capacity as the employer responsible for managing the scheme.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

The complaint should not be upheld because RL has demonstrated that the contested charge is recoverable under the terms of the policy governing the Scheme.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr S’s complaint is about Dalriada’s management of the Scheme. He complains about the length of time its investigations are taking, the legal fees being deducted from the Scheme, not being given correct or up to date information and decisions being made by Dalriada without his authority.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr N argues that he is entitled to benefits from the Policy, despite Prudential informing him that he was incorrectly receiving statements intended for a policyholder who has the same name. Due to the erroneously issued statements from Prudential, Mr N believed that he was entitled to retirement benefits from the Policy of around £103,000.

Ombudsman’s Determination

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr S has complained that DCCG misreported his redundancy entitlement to NHS BSA, when saying that he is subject to Agenda for Change redundancy terms as opposed to Very Senior Manager (VSM) terms, which he says he is contractually entitled to. As a result, NHS BSA has been paying the incorrect level of pension.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr T’s complains that TP and UoH refused to refund his Scheme contributions, made after 1 June 2015, in accordance with the Scheme Rules.