Subject

Mrs Guest complains that she agreed redundancy terms believing that Scheme benefits quoted to her were correct, when in fact they were overstated. She says that she would have acted differently if she had been given the correct information.

The Deputy Pensions Ombudsman’s determination and short reasons

The complaint should not be upheld because I am not persuaded that Mrs Guest would have acted differently and because any perceived loss has in any event been nullified now.

Subject

Mr Shepherd complains that Guardian Financial Services (GFS) provided him with incorrect information (both oral and written) about the benefits available to him from the Scheme which he relied upon to his financial detriment.

Subject

Dr Atenstaedt’s complaint against NHS Pensions centres on the rise in cost of the Additional Pension (AP) amounts that he is purchasing.

The Deputy Pensions Ombudsman’s determination and short reasons

The complaint should not be upheld against NHS Pensions as, although they did give incorrect information to him, Dr Atenstaedt was in possession of the correct information before he made his decision to elect for AP. Further the changes made to contributions levels and index-linking of AP amounts were in line with the Scheme’s Regulations.

Subject

Mr Squire complains that the Trustees and Administrator provided him with incorrect information over a period of 13 years regarding his entitlement from his deferred benefits. He says he based certain decisions on this misinformation.

The Deputy Pensions Ombudsman’s determination and short reasons

The complaint should be upheld against the Administrator because they provided information which they ought to have known was incorrect to Mr Squire causing him distress and inconvenience. The complaints against the Trustees cannot be upheld.

Subject

Mrs Perrett has complained that as a result of RBS Group Pension Services (GPS), the scheme administrator acting on behalf of the Trustees, providing inaccurate and misleading information she opted out of the Scheme thereby losing the option to elect Voluntary Early Retirement (VER) to her financial detriment.

Subject

Mrs Jenkins’ complaint which is against DoH and McKesson, as employer and administrator of the Scheme, respectively, is that they failed to advise her that an estimate of her retirement benefits which was given to her in September 2011 was incorrect.

Subject

Professor Thompson’s complaint against TP is that they incorrectly calculated his notional salary which resulted in their provision of incorrect retirement figures to him. He says that this caused him financial loss.

Subject

Captain N complains that MNOPF Trustees Ltd (the Trustees) supplied him with an incorrect early retirement quotation in October 2011 showing considerably overstated benefits as at 6 April 2013 which he relied upon to his financial detriment.

Subject

Mr Rocha complains that the Trustees provided an incorrect pension statement which led him to accept voluntary redundancy.

The Pensions Ombudsman’s determination and short reasons

The complaint should not be upheld against the Trustees because it was not reasonable for Mr Rocha to rely on the statement, given an identifiable discrepancy – and I do not consider that had he known the true figure he would have acted differently.

Subject

Mrs Wyllie complains that the Trustee has incorrectly applied the state benefit deduction from her 60^th birthday in 2014.

The Deputy Pensions Ombudsman’s determination and short reasons

The complaint should not be upheld against the Trustee because there has been no maladministration. The Trustee has dealt with Mrs Wyllie’s pension in accordance with the Scheme rules, which states that her state pension age is her 60^th birthday.