Skip to main content
Complainant:
Complaint Topic:
Ref:
Outcome:
Respondent:
Type:
Date:

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.

View determination

Download

Related decisions

Complainant:
Complaint Topic:
Ref:
Outcome:
Respondent:
Type:
Date:

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.

View determination

Download

Related decisions

Firefighters’ Pension Scheme 1992 (PO-12836)

Complainant:
Complaint Topic:
Ref:
Outcome:
Respondent:
Type:
Date:

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.

View determination

Download

Related decisions

Local Government Pension Scheme (PO-11605)

Complainant:
Complaint Topic:
Ref:
Outcome:
Respondent:
Type:
Date:

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.

View determination

Download

Related decisions

Firefighters’ Pension Scheme (PO-9469)

Complainant:
Complaint Topic:
Ref:
Outcome:
Respondent:
Type:
Date:

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.

View determination

Download

Related decisions

Complainant:
Complaint Topic:
Ref:
Outcome:
Respondent:
Type:
Date:

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.

View determination

Download

Related decisions

Solvera Pension Scheme (PO-13209)

Complainant:
Complaint Topic:
Ref:
Outcome:
Respondent:
Type:
Date:

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.

View determination

Download

Related decisions

Teachers’ Pension Scheme (PO-9460)

Complainant:
Complaint Topic:
Ref:
Outcome:
Respondent:
Type:
Date:

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr F’s complaint against 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, TP should pay Mr F £1,000 for the significant distress and inconvenience he has experienced.

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

View determination

Download

Related decisions

Pearson Group Pension Plan (PO-16800)

Complainant:
Complaint Topic:
Ref:
Outcome:
Respondent:
Type:
Date:

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr D’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 D has complained about the provision by the Trustees of incorrect information regarding his pension benefits in April 2013.

View determination

Download

Related decisions

Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme (PO-10478)

Complainant:
Complaint Topic:
Ref:
Outcome:
Respondent:
Type:
Date:

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr Y’s complaint against MyCSP and IPS 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, MyCSP and IPS shall compensate Mr Y for the significant distress and inconvenience they caused him by their mishandling of his case.

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

View determination

Download

Related decisions

Subscribe to Misquote/misinformation