Subject

Miss Blakey’s complaint is that she has been refused the early release of her pension benefits on grounds of ill health.

The Deputy Pensions Ombudsman’s determination and short reasons

The complaint should be upheld against the Authority because there has not been a proper assessment of Miss Blakey’s incapacity as there are too many shortcomings in the Scheme’s Medical Advisor’s reports for the Authority to have reasonably accepted their Medical Advisor’s opinion and turned down Miss Blakey’s application.

Subject

Mrs Hudspith complains that Sunderland City Council, the employing authority refused to award an ill-health pension at first and following further applications, they refused to award tier 1 or tier 2 benefits.

The Deputy Pensions Ombudsman’s determination and short reasons

Subject

Mr Gartland is of the opinion that he has been wrongly refused the early release of his deferred pension benefits on grounds of ill health with effect from May 2010.

The Deputy Pensions Ombudsman’s determination and short reasons

The complaint should be upheld against the Council because the decision as to whether Mr Gartland met the requirements of Regulation 31 does not appear to have been taken by the Council.

Subject

Mrs York disagrees with the decision not to award her Tier 1 benefits on her retirement on the grounds of ill health.

The Pensions Ombudsman’s determination and short reasons

The complaint should be upheld against Hertfordshire because they failed to make a determination under Regulation 20(2) of the Local Government Pension Scheme (Benefits, Membership and Contributions) Regulations 2007 in a proper manner.

Subject

Mrs Thompson disagrees with the decision not to pay her benefits early on the grounds of ill health. She is of the view that her application has not been considered properly.

Subject

Mr Schorah has complained that his application for the early payment of his preserved benefits on the grounds of permanent incapacity has not been properly considered.

The Deputy Pensions Ombudsman’s determination and short reasons

The complaint should be upheld against Veterans UK because they failed to consider Mr Schorah’s application for the early payment of his preserved benefits in a proper manner, including failing to address errors and ambiguities in the medical evidence.

Subject

Mrs Francis has complained that the Council, the managers of the Scheme, have failed to grant her Tier 1 ill health benefits in a timely manner.

The Pensions Ombudsman’s determination and short reasons

The complaint should be upheld against the Council because Mrs Francis could have been awarded her Tier 1 benefits considerably earlier than she was. The decision was improperly made twice in 2011.

Subject

Mr Anderson complains that NCC, as Administering Authority of the Scheme, delayed carrying out the review of his ill health pension appeal. In particular, Mr Anderson says that maladministration led to unacceptable delays and he is due compensation for financial loss and distress and inconvenience.

Subject

Miss Gallon has complained that the respondents have refused her request for payment from service (as opposed to from deferment) of her pension on the grounds of ill health and, in particular, that following her medical on 4 May 2010 for ill-health retirement she was not put on any tier in accordance with the Council’s pension policy.

Subject

Mr Leaning has complained that his eligibility for ill health retirement benefits has not been properly assessed. He is of the opinion that he should have been awarded Tier 1 benefits rather than Tier 3. Mr Leaning says that failure to properly assess his eligibility for benefit has caused him great stress.

The Deputy Pensions Ombudsman’s determination and short reasons

The complaint should be upheld against NLC because they failed to consider Mr Leaning’s eligibility for benefit under Regulation 20 in the proper manner.