Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr M’s complaint 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 BSA shall pay Mr M compensation of £1,200 for the significant distress and inconvenience caused to him.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr E’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right the CO should cease the deduction of Employment Support Allowance (ESA) from his Injury Pension and refund to him all ESA deductions that have been made to date, with interest.

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

Complaint summary

Mr E’s complaint is that MyCSP has been deducting an amount equal to his ESA benefit payments from his Injury Pension.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs L’s complaint is partially upheld against SPF, the administrators of the Scheme, but not against SPPA. To put matters right, SPF should pay £2,000 compensation to Mrs L for the significant non-financial injustice she has suffered.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Acre Mill’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

Acre Mill has complained that the Trustee of the Scheme has claimed that a cessation event occurred in June 2009, triggering a Section 75 debt. Acre Mill dispute this and have asked the Pensions Ombudsman to determine whether a cessation event occurred in June 2009.

Ombudsman’s Decision

Complaint summary

Mr O has complained that the reason given for leaving his employment has been recorded incorrectly and as result Mr O has not received an unreduced pension.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s decision and reasons

The complaint should be upheld against Capita because based on the evidence available, Mr O left employment by mutual consent on grounds of business efficiency and therefore falls within the scope of Regulation 30(7) of the Local Government Pension Scheme Regulations 2013.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint Summary

Mrs C has complained that Aviva has refused to pay a 3% per annum compound escalation rate on her policy, from its maturity date, which she says was agreed at the outset.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

The complaint should not be upheld against Aviva because:

• The policy expressly provided for the escalation element to be withheld if the policy did not accrue sufficient value to meet the guaranteed minimum pension.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint Summary

Ms Y’s complaint is against NHS BSA and concerns its decision to refuse her MHO status from 1992 to 2016.

Ms Y’s complaint against the Trust is that Sheffield Health Authority, Ms Y’s employing authority in the 1990’s, failed to:-

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr N’s complaint against Dalriada is partly upheld, but there is a part of the complaint I do not agree with. Although part of the complaint is upheld, no further action is required by Dalriada.

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

Complaint summary

Mr N has complained that Dalriada has failed to: