Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Ms E’s complaint and no further action is required by West Yorkshire Pension Fund

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

Complaint summary

Ms E has complained that WYPF has declined to pay her pension credit benefits early on the grounds of serious ill health.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr N’s complaint and no further action is required by TP or the School.

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

Complaint summary

Mr N’s complaint, brought on behalf of his late wife’s estate, is that TP and the School did not advise his late wife that she could apply for an ill health pension rather than an actuarially adjusted early retirement pension.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr E’s complaint against ESCC is about its decision not to process a retrospective application by him, for the payment of the late Mrs E’s pension benefits on ill-health retirement grounds.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mrs R has complained that she has been refused an enhanced pension under Regulation 107(a) of Teachers’ Pensions Regulations 2010, (the Regulations), which states a person must apply for ill heath pension within six months of leaving pensionable service to receive the enhanced incapacity benefit.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr R’s complaint against BCC and WCC 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) BCC shall pay Mr R £1,000 and WCC shall pay Mr R £500 for distress and inconvenience caused.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr N is unhappy because both BTPSML and BT have refused to grant him an enhanced level Ill Health Early Retirement (IHER). His application was refused by BT and, whilst it was accepted by BTPSML, he was only granted a standard level IHER and it was not backdated to his original application date with BT.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr T’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right, the University should reconsider the decision it made to grant Mr T tier 3 ill health retirement benefits.

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

Complaint summary

Mr T’s complaint is that he was not awarded tier 2 ill health benefits when he retired.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr L’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right the Authority should allow Mr L’s appeal to the Board of Medical Referees (the Board) on the question of whether Mr L has a qualifying injury, as defined by the rules of the Scheme.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr S’ complaint and no further action is required by the Trustee, the Committee or RPMI.

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

Complaint summary

Mr S has complained that he has been refused an ill health early retirement pension.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr E’s complaint against USS Ltd and the University, 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 review its 2008 decision not to award Mr E total incapacity benefits. In addition, it shall pay Mr E £750 for distress and inconvenience.

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