Complaint Summary

Mrs Hill’s complaint is that her application for an ill health pension was not considered correctly.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

The complaint should not be upheld against TP or DfE because it cannot be said that it was perverse, based on the medical evidence, for TP to have decided that Mrs Hill was not permanently incapacitated and that the criterion for ill health early retirement benefits in the Scheme Regulations had therefore not been met.

Complaint summary

Mrs Young has complained that her application for ill health retirement was not considered properly by Gateshead.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld against Gateshead because they failed to give proper consideration to Mrs Young’s eligibility for ill health retirement benefits under Regulation 20 of the LGPS (Benefits, Membership and Contributions) Regulations 2007.

Complaint summary

Mr McLaughlin has complained that he was not informed in his award letter that his ill health pension was subject to a periodic review, there is no mention of the need for a  periodic review in the booklet headed “Pensions Choices” (the Booklet) and the Department say they have not breached Rule D.5(2) (a) of the Scheme rules (the Rules).

Complaint summary

Miss Bywater has complained that payment of her ill health retirement benefits has not been backdated to the date she left employment and they have not been enhanced. She has also complained that the second stage of the internal dispute resolution procedure was not completed in a timely manner.

Complaint summary

Miss Dando has complained that MyCSP and the Cabinet Office have refused to pay a serious ill-health commutation lump sum from the Scheme to her late mother’s estate.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld against MyCSP because but for their maladministration, Miss Dando’s mother’s application to commute her pension on grounds of serious ill-health would have been processed before her death.

Complaint summary

Mrs O’Connor has complained that her eligibility for ill health retirement under Regulation 20 of the LGPS (Benefits, Membership and Contributions) Regulations 2007 was not properly considered by BWDBC.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld against BWDBC because they failed to consider whether Mrs O’Connor should receive benefits under Regulation 20 in April 2011 in a proper manner.

Complaint summary

Mr K has complained that his eligibility for Tier 2 benefits under Rule D.6 of the AFPS 05 Rules has not been considered properly.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld against Veterans UK because they relied on a report from their medical adviser when it was not clear that he had correctly interpreted Rule D.6.

Complaint summary

Mrs Webb’s complaint against the SCAS is that they did not inform her or her late husband that it was possible for him to take ill-health retirement or a serious ill-health lump sum under the Scheme’s regulations.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s determination and reasons

The complaint should not be upheld against SCAS because they did not have a duty to advise/inform Mr Webb about the option to take ill health retirement or a serious ill health lump sum.

Complaint summary

Mrs Staples has complained that she has been refused ill health early retirement under the Scheme.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld against MoJ, because there were flaws in the process in considering whether or not Mrs Staples met the criteria for ill health retirement.

The complaint should be upheld against MyCSP, because they failed to identify flaws in the process on reviewing the matter.

Complaint summary

Mrs Jones has complained that her eligibility for ill health retirement has not been considered in a proper manner.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld against SYP because they failed to consider Mrs Jones’ eligibility for a pension under Regulation 20 in a proper manner.