Complaint Summary

Mr Pratt has complained that his application for the early payment of his preserved benefits on the grounds of ill health has been declined.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld against Veterans UK because they failed to consider Mr Pratt’s claim in a proper manner.

Complaint summary

Ms Benker has complained about the decision reached in 2012 not to award her an ill health pension as from 2007, when her employment was terminated.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s determination and reasons

The complaint should not be upheld against GMPF because it has no involvement in deciding as to whether or not Ms Benker meets the criteria for an ill health pension from the Scheme.

The complaint should be upheld against LCRC but only to the extent of non-financial injustice Ms Benker has suffered.

Complaint summary

Mr Cooper has complained that BHCC failed to properly consider his eligibility for benefits under Regulation 20 of the LGPS (Benefits, Membership and Contributions) Regulations 2007. In particular, he disagrees with the decision to award him ‘Tier 3’ benefits.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s determination and reasons

The complaint should not be upheld against BHCC because they reached their decision in accordance with Regulation 20.

Complaint Summary

Mr Jeeva’s complaint is that the Trustee’s decision not to award him retirement benefits on the grounds of ill health was flawed.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld against the Trustee because they failed to apply the Rules correctly in their consideration of the likelihood of Mr Jeeva’s condition being permanent. Furthermore, whilst untried treatment options were identified they failed to properly consider whether Mr Jeeva’s ill-health was likely to improve if those options were undertaken.

Complaint Summary

Mr Craven’s complaint is that he has not been awarded an ill health pension from the date his employment ended on 31 January 2005.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s determination and reasons

The complaint should not be upheld as both the Council and MPF reached their respective decisions in a proper manner after due consideration of the medical opinion provided.

Complaint Summary

Mr Hutley-Savage has complained that the Council have refused him an Injury Allowance.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s determination and reasons

The complaint should not be upheld against the Council as the evidence does not support the claim that Mr Hutley-Savage’s reason for resigning was because of his back injury.

Complaint summary

Mr Cunningham has complained that his application for the early payment of his deferred benefits on the grounds of ill health has not been considered properly.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld against LPF and SPPA because they failed to consider Mr Cunningham’s application for early payment of his deferred benefits in a proper manner.

Complaint summary

Mrs Wainwright’s complaint is that she has been refused the early release of her deferred pension on grounds of ill health.

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.

Complaint summary 

Mrs Wren’s complaint is that she has been refused ill health retirement from the date her employment ended.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld against the Council because they failed to make a proper decision and their administration of the process fell short in several respects.

Complaint summary

Mr Sutton has complained that MHA, his former employer, failed to properly consider him for ill health retirement prior to the termination of his employment and incorrectly charged him for medical expenses.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld against MHA because:

• the decision as to whether Mr Sutton  met the requirements of regulation 20 does not appear to have been taken by MHA; and
• MHA incorrectly invoiced Mr Sutton for fees/costs of the IRMP.