Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I partly uphold Mr T’s complaint

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

Complaint summary

Mr T’s complaint against Aegon is about the reduced value of his benefits in the Scheme. Mr T says he was not told that his contributions were invested in ‘initial units’, and that Aegon failed to send annual statements which would have alerted him to the decreasing value of his benefits.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs L’s complaint is upheld and, to put matters right, Aviva shall pay Mrs L £500 for the significant distress and inconvenience she has suffered.

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

Complaint summary

Mrs L complains about the inconsistent information she has received regarding the date her contributions were paid to Aviva and subsequently invested. She also questions the charges that have been applied for administering her pension.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr I’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 I has complained about what he considers to be preferential treatment given to other members of the Scheme and senior managers of Concentric PLC (the Company).

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr Y’s complaint against USS 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), USS shall pay £500 to Mr Y.

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

Complaint summary

Mr Y has complained about the misinformation given by USS, the Scheme administrator, which led him to believe he would receive a higher lump sum and pension income.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr Y complains that he has been unfairly prevented from aggregating his service as a soldier, with his reckonable service as an officer.

Mr Y says that he was not told that he would lose the three years of reckonable service that accrued whilst he was a soldier, when he changed roles.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr A’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 A’s complaint concerns Aviva’s decision not to pay him the annuity as a lump sum payment.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr R’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 R has complained that his annuity is lower than he was originally quoted.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr Y’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right CSC shall provide additional information to enable Mr Y’s benefits to be calculated correctly. It shall also pay Mr Y £500 for non-financial injustice.

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

Complaint summary

Mr Y has complained that CSC failed to provide the correct information about his pensionable pay to the RPS to enable his benefits to be calculated correctly.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr Y’s complaint against TP and the Employer 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 and the Employer shall each pay Mr Y £250 for significant distress and inconvenience.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr X’s complaint against MyCSP/Cabinet Office concerns their decision not to honour an incorrect estimate of his Medical Inefficiency Compensation (MIC). Mr X would like to be granted the incorrect estimate of his entitlement for the amount of £36,365.18, under the CSCS.