Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint Summary

Mrs T complains that NHSBSA incorrectly decided not to award her Mental Health Officer (MHO) status for parts of her NHS service because the criteria upon which their decision was made are “unclear, unfair, confusing and contradictory”. She considers that she should have been awarded MHO status because:

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr O’s complaint against the Trustee is about its decision to backdate a change to the ‘Late Retirement Factor’ (LRF) that is applied to an element of his entitlement.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr N’s complaint against the Trustee is about its decision to backdate a change to the ‘Late Retirement Factor’ (LRF) that is applied to an element of his entitlement.

Ombudsman’s Determination

 Complaint Summary

Mrs H’s complaint against NHSBSA is about the decision that she was not eligible to take her benefits early under the Special Class Status (SCS) terms of the Scheme. Her complaint against  STH is that they gave her misleading information about her entitlement to continuing SCS status while on secondment on which she relied when deciding to retire.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mrs N’s complaint.

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

Complaint summary

Mrs N is complaining that City Hospitals, her employer, did not inform Mrs N that she would lose her Special-Class Status, (SCS), when she moved to a managerial role in 2003. She says that she received her pension projections in 2011, however there was no mention that her SCS had changed.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Applicants’ complaints and no further action is required by the Union and the Trustee.

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

Complaint summary

The Applicants’ complaints against the Union and the Trustee concern the refusal to award an increase in 2013 on that part of their pension accrued prior to 6 April 1997.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr T’s complaint.

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

Complaint summary

Mr T is complaining that the Trustee has amended the Late Retirement Factors (LRF), applied to his pension benefits, contrary to an agreement with Salomon Brothers in 1990 (the Letter). The Letter promised that Mr T’s pension benefits would be underpinned in relation to his former pension scheme with Merrill Lynch (ML). The letter stated:

Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint summary

Mr A has complained that the Council, his former employer, is wrongfully withholding his pension benefits.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld against Enfield Council because the legislation in question does not allow for them to withhold Mr A’s pension rights, in the manner they have.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr H’s complaint and no further action is required by Warwickshire Police.

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

Complaint summary

Mr H’s complaint against Warwickshire Police is that it has refused his request for the early payment of his deferred pension.