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.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr T’s complaint against the Trust and NHSBSA 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 Trust should pay Mr T £750 compensation in recognition of the clear distress and inconvenience which he has experienced in having to deal with this matter.

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 NHBC or Aon.

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

Complaint summary

Mr Y is complaining that he received incorrect statements, which led him to believe his benefits would be higher. When Mr Y received details of his correct entitlement from the Scheme it was 20% lower than originally quoted.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs N complaint is upheld and to put matters right Merseyside should pay Mrs N the difference between the pension she is receiving and the pension she was told she would receive.

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

Complaint summary

Mrs N is unhappy because Merseyside provided her with an inaccurate benefits statement, which she relied on before retiring early. In particular, Merseyside led her to believe that her pension benefits would be higher than they were.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr H’s complaint against the Authority and the Council is that he was given incorrect information in 2006, which led him to leave his job prior to the Scheme’s “cut-off date” of 31 March 2006, in the belief that this would protect his right to retire at 60 which would otherwise be lost.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr A’s complaint and no further action is required by ReAssure Limited

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

Complaint summary

Mr A’s complaint against ReAssure (formerly HSBC) is about the delays he has experienced, the discrepancies within his fund and the illiquid assets which his shares are invested in. He is also unhappy that his personal pension was transferred from HSBC to ReAssure without his written consent.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr H’s complaint and no further action is required by the Trustee and Berkeley Burke.

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

Complaint summary

Mr H says that he received incorrect information about the value of his benefits under the Scheme, in an email dated 22 July 2014.