Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mrs R’s complaint and no further action is required by NHSBSA.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mrs R’s complaint and no further action is required by NHS Pensions.

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

Complaint summary

Mrs R has complained that her request for trivial commutation was not actioned. She has also complained that she has not received the £14,972.58 she was told she was entitled to.

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 are explained in more detail below.

Complaint summary

Mr S’ complaint is that the Trustee does not agree that he is entitled to an unreduced pension from age 60 in respect of transferred in service from the Ford Pension Fund (the Fund).

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr N argues that he is entitled to benefits from the Policy, despite Prudential informing him that he was incorrectly receiving statements intended for a policyholder who has the same name. Due to the erroneously issued statements from Prudential, Mr N believed that he was entitled to retirement benefits from the Policy of around £103,000.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint Summary

Mr Y complains that the Trustees and Aon, the Scheme administrator, provided him with a series of incorrectly overstated illustrations of the benefits available to him on retirement from the Scheme which he had requested over the years after becoming a deferred pensioner. He says that he had relied upon these erroneous illustrations to his financial detriment by:

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: