Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint Summary

Mrs W says that NHS Pensions gave her inaccurate retirement estimates when she became 55 up until age 60, her normal retirement age. After receiving notification of the correct award at age 60, she says she was devastated by the realisation that there was a substantial reduction in her Scheme benefits compared to those she expected.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr E’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right, the Administrator, on behalf of the Trustees, should calculate the lump sum with interest that would have been payable to Mr E in December 2012. The Trustees should pay the difference between that amount, if any, and the actual amount he received. The Trustees are also liable for any related costs and charges , including (but not limited to) any unauthorised HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) charges, scheme sanction charges and the cost of carrying out the calculation.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Miss E’s complaint is about the charges that Phoenix have deducted from her pension plan from July 2012 onwards.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr Y’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right Curtis Banks and Fidelity should:

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mrs N’s complaint is that she was misled by the Council about the date on which her early retirement pension benefits would come into payment. She also says that there were delays in handling her appeals.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Dr S complaint against the Trustee is partly upheld, but there is a part of the complaint I do not agree with. To put matters right (for the part that is upheld) the Trustee should increase the maladministration compensation to £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr N disagrees with the Authority’s decision that his temporary promotion between April 2013 and March 2014 is not pensionable.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr T is complaining that Xafinity (as the administrators of the Scheme) provided him with incorrect retirement estimates.  As a result, Mr T says he relied on those estimates to make irreversible financial decisions.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr D’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 D has complained he is not receiving the same benefits that were quoted in statement received in 1991. Mr D is unhappy that the annual pension he is now receiving is lower, and that the benefits he transferred from a previous scheme have not been increased.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr S’s complaint against Aviva is about the amount that they say he is entitled to from the Scheme.