Miss MacFarlane disagrees with the decision not to grant her a Permanent Injury Benefit (PIB) The Deputy Pensions Ombudsman’s determination and short reasons The complaint should not be upheld against the NHS Business Services Authority because they reached their decision in the proper manner. D …

Mrs Brooks-Stacey complains that the NHSBSA wrongfully declined her application for Permanent Injury Benefit (PIB” from the Scheme. She also alleged that the Employer …

Mrs Leeks complains that: She was not informed that she should have stopped paying contributions to the NHS Pension Scheme (the Scheme) two years earlier than she was. She should have had the opportunity to retire with maximum pensionable ben …

Mr Stokes complains that the Council have not used the best year from the last three years of service in order to calculate his pension. Mr Stokes believes that a lump sum payment made to him in November 2007 should be attributed in its entirety for pensionable pay purposes. The Pensions O …

The PPF Ombudsman has received a referral of a reviewable matter following a decision by the Reconsideration Committee of the Board of the PPF dated 2 May 2012. The reviewable matter concerns the decision by the Board to approve a valuation of the Scheme undertaken pursuant to Section 143 of the Pensions Act 2004.

Ms Langford has complained that the SPVA have refused to pay her a pension on the death of her partner despite the long standing nature of their relationship and the fact that she was dependent upon him. The Deputy Pensions Ombudsman’s determination and short reasons The complai …

Subject

Dr Langdell complains that Abbey Life repeatedly verbally assured him that his tax free cash was in the region of £13,845.6. However, he was subsequently paid around £7,800. He also says that they failed to follow his instructions regarding the set up of his pension benefits, given that he had stated that if he was to receive less than £13,845.61 of tax free cash, he did not wish to receive his pension benefits at that time.

The Deputy Pensions Ombudsman’s determination and short reasons

The complaint should be upheld against Abbey Life because they:

Complaint Summary

Mrs Smith’s complaint is that the conduct of the Rent Service (her previous employer, for whose activities the DWP is now responsible) involved maladministration, as it made a pension offer conditional on her signing a draft compromise agreement (the Compromise Agreement) which included a clause compromising any claim in relation to underpayment of wages when it was aware that she had an outstanding claim for unpaid wages.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr D’s complaint and no further action is required by Teachers’ Pensions.

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

Complaint summary

Mr D has complained that Teachers’ Pensions refused in 2012 to reinstate the ill health pension that he had been receiving.

Ombudsman’s Determination

 Complaint Summary

Mrs L and Mr H have complained that Mr Dutton misappropriated benefits due from the Plan on the death of their brother Mr S.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld against Mr Dutton because he refused to allow Mr S to transfer his preserved benefits, ignored Mr S’ wishes as well as the Plan Rules and statutory requirements, and improperly shared out Mr S’ fund between Manflex Limited and its employees.