Firemen’s Pension Scheme (1992) (CAS-84081-R5F2)
Ombudsman’s Determination
Outcome
The complaint is partly upheld against the Authority because:-
The complaint is partly upheld against the Authority because:-
The complaint is upheld against the Authority because:-
I do not uphold Mr L’s complaint and no further action is required by the Council.
Mr R’s complaint is upheld and, to put matters right, the Employer shall pay Mr R £1,000 for the serious distress and inconvenience it has caused him.
Mr R has complained that the Employer, despite deducting contributions from his pay, had failed to pay into the Scheme.
Mr R has said that the missing contributions amounted to over £2,000.
Ms Y’s complaint is upheld and, to put matters right, the Trustee, the Company and Mercer shall take the actions set out in paragraphs 61, 62, 63 and 64 below.
Ms Y has complained that the Company delayed her redundancy date, and that before she could leave the Company, the Trustee and Mercer changed the Scheme’s actuarial factors, causing her financial detriment.
I do not uphold Mrs N’s complaint, and no further action is required by TP or the DfE.
I do not uphold Mr N’s complaint and no further action is required by Aviva.
Mr I’s complaint against ReAssure is partly upheld. To put matters right, ReAssure shall pay Mr I £500 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience he suffered.
The complaint is not upheld against the Respondents because whilst some delays arose, this was due to confirming information that was reasonably necessary and relevant, and the delays were not excessive and did not breach the statutory time limits.
I do not uphold H’s complaint, and no further action is required by the Trustee or L&G.