Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mrs M’s complaint and no further action is required by CCS.

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

Complaint summary

Mrs M’s complaint against CCS concerns the deduction of the Retained Pay Agreement (RPA), from her pension.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr N’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 N is unhappy that he has not received his Railways Pension Scheme 1994 Pensioner Section (RPS) benefits in line with the preferential, Schedule 8 terms. He has also complained about the lack of information that was provided when the Trustee wrote to him to discuss the possibility of amalgamating his former RPS rights.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs P’s complaint against the Council and TP 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 Council will pay Mrs P £2,000 to recognise the severe 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 Council or WYPF.

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

Complaint summary

Mr N is concerned that the actuarial factor applying to his late retirement has decreased. He is also unhappy that the Council failed to communicate this change to him.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr S has complained that he did not receive the full pension increases for 2017/18, because he retired part way through the year.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr L’s complaint against Trustees and Xafinity is not upheld, as although there was some maladministration on the part of Xafinity, the administrators addressed the issue once Mr L had formerly complained and Xafinity offered to pay Mr L £500 in recognition of Mr L’s significant distress and inconvenience.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr X has complained that he was wrongly refused clarification of how his scheme benefits are calculated.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr S’ complaint concerns the reduction in his pensionable salary. He believes the reduction was done arbitrarily by BA, and is contrary to previous agreements.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr G’s complaint concerns the reduction in his pensionable salary. He believes the reduction was done arbitrarily by BA, and is contrary to previous agreements.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr N’s complaint concerns the reduction in his pensionable salary. He believes the reduction was done arbitrarily by BA, and is contrary to previous agreements.