Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Miss T’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right RPMI should refer the decision back to the Committee, which should make the decision afresh taking into account all relevant evidence within 28 days of the date of this determination.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mrs Y’s complaint and no further action is required by AON Hewitt or Rothesay.

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

Complaint summary

Mrs S has said that her late husband’s AVC fund should be paid to her as a lump sum of approximately £12,500.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr D’s complaint against the Trustees is that they have said that they do not have the power to implement all the terms of a county court consent order in the manner that he wanted.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr Y’s complaint is upheld against ReAssure, but not against Transact.  To put matters right, ReAssure should pay £500 compensation to Mr Y, for the significant distress and inconvenience that has been caused to him.

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

Complaint summary

Mr Y’s complaint about ReAssure (the ceding scheme) and Transact (the receiving scheme), is that they both contributed to delaying the transfer of his funds, which resulted in financial loss to him.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Ms E’s complaint and no further action is required by the Trustees or the Administrators.

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

Complaint summary

Ms E’s complaint about the Trustees and the Administrators of the Scheme is that they refused to award her the death benefits from her late ex-husband’s pension in the Scheme.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint Summary

Mrs S’s complaint against James Hay and the Member Trustees, is about the delay in paying her the benefits she is entitled to under the Scheme following the death of her late husband.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

The complaint should not be upheld against James Hay and Mrs Glenna Dunlop, but it should be upheld against Mr Stephen Dunlop, Mrs Helen Dunlop and Mr Gary Dunlop because:

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr Y’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right GMPF should consider wholly afresh whether the death grant should be paid to the Estate. GMPF should also pay Mr Y £500 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to him.

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

Complaint summary

Mr Y disagrees with the decision of the GMPF not to award him and his wife the death in service benefit following the death of his son, and the decision to award the death grant to the Estate.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr N says Camden Council led him to believe that he would receive 50% of the total death grant due from the Scheme following the death of his cousin. But instead Camden Council paid it to the estate.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs E’s complaint against Roxburgh and Standard Life 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) she should be compensated for the significant distress and inconvenience their maladministration has caused her to suffer.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr L’s complaint against the MoD, and Veterans UK 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) the MoD should compensate him for the non-financial loss they have caused him to suffer.

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