Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

The complaint is upheld against USS because it failed to provide sufficient and accurate information to Professor E, at the time he made his decision to opt for EOO, about the impact it would have on his entitlement to LRF. Consequently, he made an uninformed decision which has caused him an injustice.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Dr Y’s complaint against NHS BSA is partly upheld. To put matters right, NHS BSA shall pay Dr Y £500 for the significant distress and inconvenience its maladministration will have caused him.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr R’s complaint and no action is required by TPT.

Complaint summary

Mr R has complained that:

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

The complaint is not upheld against Rowanmoor as Administrator, as it was not its responsibility to carry out the level of due diligence suggested by Mr N, and because it fulfilled the duties it did have in relation to the Scheme adequately. 

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr G’s complaint and no action is required by Fidelity.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Dr A’s complaint and no further action is required by NHS BSA. 

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr D’s complaint is not upheld and no further action is required by the Employer. 

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Ms S’ complaint and no further action is required by NHS BSA.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

The complaint is not upheld because at the time the investments were made, it was not the responsibility of either Carey Pension Trustees UK Limited or Carey Pensions UK LLP to carry out the level of due diligence suggested by Mrs H, taking into account the relevant law and th