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.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr Y’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 Y’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 Mrs R’s complaint and no further action is required by Gloucestershire NHS Partnership Trust, Gloucestershire NHS Procurement Shared Service, or NHS BSA.

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

Complaint summary

Mrs R’s complaint concerns NHS BSA’s decision to assess her permanent loss of earning ability (PLOEA) at the maximum award of more than 75% (Band 5) from January 2016, rather than backdate it to her last day of service in May 1995.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

1. I do not uphold Mrs L’s complaint and no further action is required by JLT.
2. My reasons for reaching this decision are explained in more detail below.

Complaint summary

3. Mrs L considers that the figures quoted for her taking early retirement benefits from the Scheme is disproportionately lower than it would be should she retire at her normal retirement date (NRD).

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr Y’s complaint and no further action is required by Capita or the Trustees.

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

Complaint summary

Mr Y’s complaint concerns overstated pension figures. Mr Y says he made life changing decisions, which he would not otherwise have made, in reliance on those figures.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr N believes that his pension benefits have been incorrectly calculated. In particular, he believes that an incorrect figure has been used for his pensionable earnings, and that he is owed an ill health enhancement from the classic section of the Scheme (the classic section).

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr S has complained that Merseyside Police has failed to put in place provisions to lift the commutation cap that affects officers that have less than 30 years pensionable service.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint Summary

Mr S says he was given a reasonable expectation that the Scheme would make up any shortfall required to provide his guaranteed minimum pension (GMP) (the Guarantee). He maintains that the Current Trustee is attempting to go back on the Guarantee and deny him his correct entitlement.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr K’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 pay Mr K, £500 for the significant distress and inconvenience this situation has caused him.

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

Complaint summary

Mr K’s complaint concerns the Trustee’s decision not to increase his deferred benefits by 50%.

Ombudsman’s Determination

 Outcome

I do not uphold Mr S’ complaint and no further action is required by Babcock or the Trustee.

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

Complaint summary

Mr S’ complaint is: