Complaint summary

Mr Dennis has complained about:

• the Trustee’s decision to alter the date on which pensions are paid and the choice of the 12th of the month as the new payment date;
• the Trustee’s stance on recovering part pension payments corresponding with periods after a member’s death.
• He asserts that the Trustee did not act within the Scheme rules when they changed the payment date and the Scheme is making unauthorised payments to the estates of some deceased pensioners.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reason

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs K’s complaint against NHS Pensions 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) NHS Pensions should pay Mrs K £500 for the 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 D’s complaint and no further action is required by GYPA.

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

Complaint summary

Mr D’s complaint is summarised as follows:

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr I complains that the Trustees and Mercer, the administrator of the Fund, are wrongly refusing to pay him a pension from the Fund.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr N’s complaint and no further action is required by either the Trustees or the Employer.

Complaint summary

Mr N’s complaint against the Trustees and the Employer is that he was forced to become a deferred member of the Scheme and that the benefits for deferred members and active members are treated differently, which is to his detriment.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr S is unhappy because MoD has said he is not entitled to benefits under the Scheme. In particular, MoD says he has never been eligible for Scheme membership.

Mr S is also unhappy because he has been underpaid approximately £1,000 by MoD.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr S has complained that BAT Ltd are not offering him a Pension Increase Exchange (PIE) option. He believes this is discriminatory against him and other members of the Overseas Pension Fund (the Overseas Fund).

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr N’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 N has complained that as a result of the Scheme winding up, the Trustees have reduced his entitlement to a spouse’s pension.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr N’s complaint and no further action is required by the Council and/or the Fund.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr Y has complained that the College failed to enrol him in the LGPS between 2 May 1995 and his 60^th birthday on 30 August 2013, which is the date he re-joined the Teachers’ Pension Scheme (TPS).