Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr S’ complaint and no further action is required by Trustees.

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

Complaint summary

Mr S has complained that his eligibility for Category 2 Incapacity benefits has not been properly considered.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr N’s complaint against the Company and the Trustee is that his pension from the Plan was reduced by about 40% for early payment, despite his understanding that a pension payable from the Plan on ill health grounds would not be reduced.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint Summary

Mrs T’s complaint, in her capacity as the executor of her late husband’s estate, is that Mr T was incorrectly refused ill health retirement when his employment ended in 2011.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

The complaint should upheld against the Council as it failed to make a properly informed decision on Mr T’s ill health application.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr N is complaining that after consulting with TP he was told, on two occasions that although his ill-health pension would continue to be paid, if he took the employment positions he was considering, it would mean his Total Incapacity Benefit (TIB) would cease.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr N retired on ill-health grounds, and says he was assured that his pension would be enhanced up to the age of 60. But, when he received the relevant documentation he found he was not entitled to an enhancement.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs K’s complaint against HCC 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, HCC shall pay Mrs K £500 for the significant distress and inconvenience she has experienced.

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

Complaint summary

Mrs K complains about the decision HCC has made regarding the tier of ill health early retirement (IHER) pension she is entitled to.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Ms S’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right the School shall consider Ms S’s ill health retirement pension (IHRP) application again.

The School shall also pay Ms S £500 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by not following the procedure properly.

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

Complaint summary

Ms S’s complaint against the School is that it refused her Tier 1 benefits.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs D’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right the Council shall:

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr I’s complaint and no further action is required by Cabinet Office, MyCSP or the Employer.

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

Complaint summary

Mr I complains that he was granted ill-health retirement (IHR) as a member of the Alpha section of the PCSPS, rather than the Classic section. As a result, part of his pension has been calculated in accordance with the Alpha section regulations, which in his case provide less favourable benefits.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mrs L’s complaint and no further action is required by HMRC or My Civil Service Pensions.

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

Complaint summary

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