Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Miss N’s complaint against the USS Trustee and the University is partly upheld in respect of the University but not the USS Trustee; however, there is a part of the complaint I do not agree with. To put matters right for the part that is upheld, the University shall pay Miss N £500 in respect of significant distress, including loss of opportunity and loss of expectation.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr S’ complaint and no further action is required by the Trustee.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr N has complained that ReAssure has said he is unable to take his benefits as a lump sum, because he has already started receiving an annuity from the Scheme.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs T’s complaint is partly upheld and to put matters right the Trustees and WTW shall award Mrs T £1,000 in recognition of the serious distress and inconvenience which she has experienced dealing with this matter.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr H’s complaint and no further action is required by Royal Mail.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr N’s complaint 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, Aon should make a distress and inconvenience award to Mr N.

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

Complaint summary

Mr N says he was not told that less favourable early retirement factors apply to deferred members. Had he known about the difference in factors, he would have retired immediately on opting out of the Plan.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs E’s complaint against NHS BSA and the Trust 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 shall pay Mrs E £1,000 to recognise the serious distress and inconvenience she has suffered. NHS BSA is not required to take further action.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr H’s complaint and no further action is required by the Trustees, James Finlay, or Hymans Robertson.

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

Complaint summary

Mr H essentially complains that the Trustees, James Finlay, and Hymans Robertson failed to adequately inform him of the actions which he had to take within prescribed timescales to transfer the benefits available to him from the Fund to a new pension arrangement before they were lost.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Ms S’ complaint and no further action is required by LBM or TP.

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

Complaint summary

Ms S’ complaint is that LBM, your employer, and TP, the Scheme administrator, failed to correctly administer your election to purchase Additional Pension (AP).

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr K’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 K’s complaint is that the temporary additional pension awarded to him under the State Spreading Option (SSO), permitted by the Scheme rules, should continue to be paid up to his revised State Pension Age (SPA) of 66 and should not cease at age 65.