Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Ms E’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 award Ms E £1,000 in recognition of the serious distress and inconvenience it has caused her.

Ombudsman’s Determination

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr S has complained about the information he received from the Administrator regarding his benefits. He says that he relied on this information to plan for his retirement and now, to his detriment, has had to adjust his financial plans.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Ms E’s complaint and no further action is required by Capita or the Council.

Complaint summary

Ms E’s complaint concerns:

• the Council’s refusal to allow early release of deferred benefits, or retirement on ill health grounds; and
• alleged miscalculation of her pension, due to the merger of her two periods of service in the Scheme.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I agree that part, but not all, of this complaint should be upheld. To put matters right for the part that should be upheld, the Trustee shall pay Mr S £1,000 to recognise the serious distress and inconvenience caused to him.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Professor I’s complaint against USS Ltd 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 Ltd shall pay Professor I £500 in recognition of the significant distress and inconvenience caused by providing him with incorrect retirement quotations and information relating to his pensionable pay and pensionable service.

Complaint summary

Professor I’s complaints are:

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Ms R’s complaint and no further action is required by the Hospice.

Complaint summary

Ms R’s complaint is that the Hospice unfairly deprived her of an entitlement to join the Scheme, under the Hospice’s NHS direction body status.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

Complaint summary

Mr S complains that the Annual Benefit Statements (ABS) provided to him by the Trustee led him to believe his entitlement would be considerably greater than it is. Mr S feels that the shortfall has made a significant difference to his income in retirement and that he should be compensated.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

Complaint summary

Mr N has complained about an incorrect cash equivalent transfer value (CETV) that he received in March 2017 (the 2017 CETV). He claims that he relied on the 2017 CETV, that it was reasonable for him to do so, and that he has suffered a financial loss that he cannot mitigate.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr D’s complaint and no further action is required by Phoenix Life Limited.

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

Complaint summary

Mr D’s complaint is that incorrect literature from Phoenix caused him to defer taking retirement benefits to his normal retirement age (NRA) of 60, in November 2018. He expected a higher terminal bonus in lieu of the pension payments that he would have received by retiring earlier.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Ms L’s complaint and no further action is required by WYPF.

Complaint Summary

Ms L’s complaint is that WYPF calculated the value of her Scheme pension entitlement incorrectly.