Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mrs Y’s complaint and no further action is required by NHS Pensions.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr S’s complaint is about Dalriada’s management of the Scheme. He complains about the length of time its investigations are taking, the legal fees being deducted from the Scheme, not being given correct or up to date information and decisions being made by Dalriada without his authority.

Ombudsman’s Determination

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr N complains that he was not informed that the increased contribution of £70 he made to the Plan in 1997 did not attract a Guaranteed Annuity Rate (GAR). He says he was not informed of the rule change implemented in 1994 and, if he had been, he would have made different investment choices.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

Complaint summary

Mr N complains about the value of his pension benefits. He does not believe that his benefits have been calculated correctly as he was under the impression that he would receive more than he had been quoted. As a result, he would like additional funds added to his pension benefits.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mrs S’ complaint and no further action is required by NHS BSA

Complaint summary

Mrs S’ complaint is that she would like to claim a larger lump sum than she originally applied for, but NHS BSA is refusing her request, due to the time taken for her to make it.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr S’ complaint is that HGL, the sponsoring employer of HPS2, decided after the implementation of the Regulated Apportionment Arrangement (RAA) to merge other Defined Benefit (DB) schemes it sponsored into HPS2 and this compromised the security and value of his benefits.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I agree that part, but not all, of this complaint should be upheld. To put matters right for the part that should be upheld, NHS BSA shall pay £500 to Mr H, in recognition of the significant distress and inconvenience it has caused.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

Complaint summary

Mr E complains that:-

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

Complaint summary

Mr V complains that Fidelity caused a delay when completing his transfer request from the SIPP to Alliance Trust Savings (ATS). He also claims that he received contradictory information about the value of his benefits during that time. As a result, Mr V would like an award in recognition of the distress and inconvenience he suffered.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

Complaint summary

2. Mr N complains that he was not provided with information in 1973 about increasing the widow’s pension payable from the Scheme in the event of his death. Mr N would like the widow’s pension payable to be based on one half of his pension using all his police service and not just the period from 1 April 1972 onwards.