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:

Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint Summary

Mr N has complained that the Trustee has incorrectly interpreted the rules relevant to his application for ill health early retirement (IHER) from Early Leaver status.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

The complaint should not be upheld against the Trustee because it has correctly applied and interpreted the rules in relation to Mr N’s application for IHER.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint summary

Mr A complains that the Authority is not treating certain elements of his pay as He believes this is contrary to the 2006 Scheme rules, as set out in The Firefighters‘ Pension Scheme(England) Order 2006 (the Rules).

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs I’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right NHSBSA should re-assess whether Mrs I is eligible for Mental Health Officer (MHO) status.

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

Complaint summary

Mrs I has complained that NHSBSA have refused to award her MHO status for her period of service from 1989 to present. This means that if she chooses to retire at age 55, she will be subject to early retirement reductions.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint Summary

Mrs E says that she was made redundant by SCONUL on 16 November 2012. She alleges that SCONUL subsequently incorrectly informed USS Ltd that she had left by mutual agreement and was therefore not entitled to an unreduced immediate early retirement pension from the USS.

She also complains that USS Ltd provided her with insufficient and misleading information about her USS pension rights available on redundancy which resulted in her failure to apply for an unreduced pension from the USS in November 2012.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr N’s complaint against the Trustee 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 Trustee shall pay Mr N £500 for significant distress and inconvenience caused.

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

Complaint summary

Mr N is unhappy because the Trustee has applied a reduction to his Scheme benefits.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mrs L is complaining that when she was made redundant by Barnardo’s she should have received an enhanced pension from the Scheme under rule 11.2.2.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mrs S’ complaint and no further action is required by the Council, the School or the Authority.

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 MyCSP.

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

Complaint summary

Mr E’s complaint is that MyCSP must abate his Scheme pension while he continues to accrue further benefits in the Scheme.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr N’s complaint and no further action is required by the MoD or Veterans UK.

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

Complaint summary

Mr N complains that it is unlawful that his wife is not entitled to widow’s benefits under the Scheme Rules.