Subject

Mr Davies has complained that his eligibility for payment of benefits under either Regulation 19 or Regulation 30 has not been properly considered. He has also complained that LCC took an excessive amount of time to consider his case under the internal dispute resolution (IDR) procedure.

Subject

Mr Moulton complains that Argos Limited (Argos) did not grant him early retirement from active status in respect of his membership of the Scheme.  Further, he is unhappy with Argos and Home Retail Group Pension Scheme Nominees Limited (the Trustee) about the way in which his application was administered.

Complaint summary

Mr Vithlani complains that Scottish Widows do not accept that he is the beneficial owner of the Policy.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s determination and reasons

I find in Mr Vithlani’s favour because the evidence is that he and the person to whom the policy relates are the same.

Complaint summary

Miss Elliott complains that North East Lincolnshire NHS Care Trust Plus (Care Trust Plus), her former employer, have wrongly rejected her request for an early unreduced pension under the “rule of 85”.

Complaint Summary

Mr Muller has complained that County Tyre wrongly stopped his monthly payments from the Scheme.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

My decision is that this complaint should be upheld. This is because the available evidence shows that Mr Muller was a pensioner Scheme member receiving a monthly pension up until November 2013. I am satisfied that County Tyre should have continued to pay the pension to Mr Muller after this date.

Complaint summary

Mrs Chapman complains that Birmingham City University (BCU) and West Midlands Pension Fund (WMPF) have wrongly declined her application for early payment of her deferred pension in the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS). She contends that:

Complaint summary

Mrs Butterworth’s complaints about PCCGM are as follows:

Complaint summary

Mrs N has complained that AEM and NCC denied her access to an immediate retirement pension under the LGPS when she left AEM’s employment in circumstances which in her view amounted to redundancy.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

The complaint is not upheld, because the circumstances under which Mrs N left AEM’s employment by way of a compromise agreement, neither qualify her for an immediate pension, nor constitute maladministration by the respondents.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr R’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 R’s complaint against Veterans UK is that, contrary to what he was told previously, they now say that he has not entitled to a preserved pension from the Scheme.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint Summary

Mr X complains that the Trustees wrongly decided not to award him interest on the extra pension payment available to him from the Scheme of £18,779.28 after his pension was recalculated during the Scheme’s assessment period for entry into the Pension Protection Fund (PPF).