Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

Complaint summary

Mr S contends that the Scheme is discriminatory: male teachers automatically accrued partner pension cover from 1972, while female teachers automatically accrued cover from 1988.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr Y’s complaint against TP 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) the University should pay Mr Y £1,000 for the severe distress and inconvenience caused to him by its mishandling of his case.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

Complaint summary

Mrs D has complained about the level of partner benefits paid to her from the Scheme following the death of her husband, Mr D, and has said that TP has not counted her late husband’s service from February 1963 to March 1972 for partner pension purposes.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Ms S’ complaint and no further action is required by Royal London.

Complaint summary

Ms S has complained about the discretionary decision made in relation to Mr Y’s death benefits under the Scheme. As Ms S was named as the beneficiary, she believes she is entitled to the full amount, as this was to cover any debts left by Mr Y.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

Complaint summary

Mrs R’s complaint concerns the decision NHS BSA made in 2017, to cease her widow’s pension, after she informed it that she was co-habiting with her partner.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

Complaint summary

Miss Y’s complaint against the Council concerns the provision of incorrect information regarding her entitlement to a survivor’s pension on the death of her late partner, Mr R. Miss Y also believes she should be entitled to the death grant as she was the sole beneficiary nominated by Mr R.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

Complaint summary

Mrs H complains that:-

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

Complaint summary

Mrs T has complained about the manner in which the lump sum death benefit payable on the death of her husband has been distributed. She has complained about the interpretation of the Scheme Rules and the way in which the evidence has been applied in reaching a decision.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

Complaint Summary

Mrs N’s complaint was that she was not allocated any of the death benefits paid following the death of her husband, Mr N.

Since the complaint has been accepted by The Pensions Ombudsman (TPO), Fidelity has reconsidered its view and awarded 40% of the benefits to Mrs N and 30% to each of her two sons. It has also made a payment, of £2,000, in recognition of the severe distress and inconvenience caused.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

Complaint summary

Mrs Y’s complaint against the Trustee is that:

• the calculation and payment of benefits following the death of her cousin, Mr S, was incorrect; and
• the payment made did not accord with the formula provided on the Fund’s website.

Mrs Y would like Mr S’ estate to receive a lump sum of five times Mr S’ pension.