Subject

Mr K has complained that his eligibility for ill health retirement benefits has not been properly considered. He disagrees with the decision to pay him Tier 1 benefits.

The Pensions Ombudsman’s determination and short reasons

The complaint should be upheld against Veterans UK because they failed to give proper consideration to Mr K’s eligibility for Tier 2 benefits.

Mr L has complained that Veterans UK have refused to increase his Service

• Attributable Pension from 60% to 70% to match his War Disablement Pension.

The Pensions Ombudsman’s determination and short reasons

The complaint should not be upheld against Veterans UK because the decision was properly reached.

Complaint summary

Mr Sheerin has complained that CCC failed to conduct his appeal against the tier of ill health retirement benefits he had been awarded in a proper manner.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld against CCC. They did not reach their conclusions properly in Mr Sheerin’s case.

Subject

Mrs Wallace’s complaint is that she has been wrongly refused upper tier ill health retirement.

The Deputy Pensions Ombudsman’s determination and short reasons

The complaint should not be upheld against SPPA as they reached their decision in a proper manner after due consideration of the medical opinion provided.

Subject

Mr Gilliland has complained that NILGOSC refused to award him an ill health retirement pension.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld against NILGOSC because they made their decision following their review of Mr Gilliland’s application for an ill health retirement pension based on an incomplete and insufficient report by Dr Turner and subsequent reports by Dr Maguire and Dr Anderson.

Complaint summary

Ms Sims Williams’ complaint is that Housing & Care 21 (her late husband’s employer) and City of Westminster (who operate the Scheme) failed to consider Mr Sims request for ill health retirement in a timely manner.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s determination and reasons

The complaint should not be upheld against Housing & Care 21 because Mr Sims changed his mind after applying for ill health retirement and subsequently died shortly after his application was reactivated.

Subject

Mr Hill’s complaint is that the Trustees refused to award him chronic ill health benefits from the Scheme.

The Pensions Ombudsman’s determination and short reasons

The complaint should be upheld against the Trustees because they did not take steps to ensure that they had appropriate evidence upon which to base their decision.

Complaint summary

Ms Thomson complains that the Council did not consider her applications for ill-health early retirement from deferred LGPS membership and for early retirement on compassionate grounds.

The Deputy Pensions Ombudsman’s determination and short reasons

The complaint should be upheld against the Council because Ms Thomson was not given an opportunity to consent to release her medical records so that her ill-health application may be reconsidered.

Complaint summary

Mr X has complained that the Council have not properly considered his eligibility for ill health retirement.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld against the Council because they failed to consider Mr X’s eligibility for benefits under Regulation 20 in a proper manner; in particular, they failed to make a decision under Regulation 20(1).

Complaint summary

In essence, Mrs Greene’s complaint is that she has been refused ill health retirement from the date her employment with the Council ended.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld because the Council failed to obtain the information they needed to reach a properly informed decision.

The complaint is not upheld against SYPA.