Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr Y’s complaint concerns incorrect statements that he received. The information had been factored into his retirement planning and he is now financially disadvantaged. This has impacted his health, his work and his financial future.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr T has complained that Carey Pensions provided incorrect information in connection with a court case. He says the Court was led to believe that his pension scheme could be sold and realise £7,600.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr E’s complaint and no further action is required by the Cabinet Office

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

Complaint summary

Mr E has complained that when he left the MOD in 1996 he was informed that he could draw his two MOD pensions at age 60. There was no mention of any abatement rule. When he applied for his pensions at age 60 these were wholly abated. Mr E believes the abatement should not be applied and wants his full unabated pension re-instated.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr Y has complained that the Fund did not fully explain how his benefit entitlement would be paid, leading him to believe that he had applied for a higher amount.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr D’s complaint is upheld and, to put matters right, Curtis Banks should provide redress on the terms set out in its offer to this Office and send Mr D summary statements showing the monetary effect of the redress. Curtis Banks should also pay Mr D £750 for the significant distress and inconvenience he has experienced.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr Y has complained that:

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Dr S’ complaint and no further action is required.

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

Complaint summary

Dr S says Teachers’ Pensions provided wrong, inadequate, and misleading information. She planned her retirement on the expectation that her average salary would be calculated over the last 365 days service. Teachers’ Pensions did not notify her – in advance, that her salary would be restricted, and used an incorrect restricted salary to calculate her award.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr D’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 D says that he was given incorrect information on two occasions, on 17 March 2016 and 3 August 2016, about the increases to the pre-1988 Guaranteed Minimum Pension (GMP) part of his pension.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mrs S’ complaint and no further action is required by Leicestershire County Council Pensions.

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

Complaint summary

Mrs S’ complaint concerns the Council incorrectly informing her she could transfer her pension, on which basis she chose to retire early. Mrs S says she is no longer able to return to her previous role and is having to rely on her husband to cover her financially.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr S’ complaint against NHS BSA 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, NHS BSA should pay Mr S £2,000 for the significant distress and inconvenience caused by the incorrect information it provided.

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

Complaint summary

Mr S has complained that he was misinformed on when he would be able to take the entirety of his pension benefits on an unreduced basis.