Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr W’s complaint and no further action is required by NP or TWPF.

Complaint Summary

Mr W’s complaint is that NP, his former employer, and TWPF did not award him Tier 1 Ill Health Retirement (IHR).

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

Complaint Summary

Mr S complains that NWFC, his former employer, and CWCC, the Administering Authority, should have considered his application for ill health retirement (IHR), as if he were still employed by NWFC. Mr S says that had he not resigned and remained an employee, then NWFC may have terminated his employment on the grounds of capability and he would have been entitled to an IHR pension.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Ms I’s complaint and no further action is required by the Trust or NHS BSA.

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

Complaint summary

Ms I has complained that she made an application for ill health retirement (IHR) benefits on 9 December 2016, but that this was unduly delayed by the Trust and NHS BSA.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mrs N’s complaint and no further action is required by the Council.

Complaint summary

Mrs N’s complaint concerns the Council’s decision to refuse her application for ill health early retirement (IHER) as a deferred Scheme member.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Ms N’s complaint against Redbridge 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), Redbridge shall pay Ms N £500 for the significant non-financial injustice which she has suffered.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr S’ complaint against TP 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, TP shall pay Mr S £1,000 for the significant distress and inconvenience that it has caused him.

Complaint summary

Mr S complains that TP poorly handled his request to convert his Accrued Incapacity Benefits (AIB) to Total Incapacity Benefits (TIB).

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr R’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right the Trustee shall review its decision not to backdate his pension to 2015.

Complaint summary

Mr R has complained that the Trustee has paid his frozen benefits with effect from April 2017, rather than September 2015.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mrs S’ complaint and no further action is required by the Trustee.

Complaint summary

Mrs S disagrees with the Trustee’s decision to reduce her incapacity pension by 50%.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr S’ complaint against the Trustees is partly upheld, but there is a part of the complaint I do not uphold. To put matters right (for the part which is upheld), the Trustees shall review their decision not to waive the early payment reduction in Mr S’ case.

Complaint summary

Mr S has complained that the Trustees have declined to pay his deferred pension early on the grounds of ill health. He has also complained that the Trustees have not “inflation-proofed” his Guaranteed Minimum Pension (GMP).