Complaint summary

Miss Marshall has complained that Barnsley have refused her request to allow the late transfer of the pension benefits from previous employments.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld because Barnsley did not take proper account of all relevant factors in deciding whether to extend the period for transfer.

Subject

Bridge Trustees Ltd complain that two of the previous trustees Mr Burrows and Mr Lloyd authorised the return of £193,010.93 to Pilkington’s Tiles Limited (the Company) and in doing so acted in contravention of the rules of the Scheme and contrary to the interests of the members. As such they have committed a breach of trust and should not be entitled to an indemnity under rule 14.20.

Complaint summary

Mrs Readman has complained that the SoS, on behalf of Devon Primary Care Trust (the Trust) – her former employer, refused to authorise the payment of unreduced early retirement benefits to her.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reason

The complaint should be upheld against SoS because their decision refusing to authorise the payment of unreduced early retirement benefits to Mrs Readman was perverse.

Complaint

Dr Major has complained that NHSBSA has refused to allow him to rejoin the 1995 Section of the Scheme.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

The complaint should not be upheld because NHSBSA can only act in accordance with the regulations governing the Scheme. These do not allow Dr Major to rejoin the 1995 Section of the Scheme.

Complaint Summary

Mr Mayo complains that the KPP Trustees and the KPP2 Trustees failed to inform him until after he had already retired early on 1 April 2013 that by deferring early retirement until 1 November 2013 the pension available to him from KPP would be calculated using the more generous Pension Protection Fund (PPF) early retirement factors.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr N has complained that the control and financing of his pension benefits have been transferred to an insurer and that he has been denied the option of taking up a pension increase exchange (PIE) as a consequence of that insurer’s influence.

Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

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

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

Complaint summary

Mrs E’s complaint against NHSBSA, the Scheme managers is that she should be entitled to continue to receive her widow’s pension even if she were to remarry or cohabit. She has been told by NHSBSA that the Scheme rules do not allow for this.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr S has complained that he has not been allowed to re-join the Armed Forces Pension Scheme 1975 (AFPS 75). As an alternative, Mr S argues he should be allowed to aggregate his AFPS 75 service with his current Armed Forces Pension Scheme 2005 (AFPS 05) membership, or continue to receive his AFPS 75 pension.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr S has complained about Suffolk Life’s decision to require him to transfer his SIPP to another provider.

Mr S has complained that this action is unreasonable and unjustified and has caused him significant distress.