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).

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Miss M’s complaint is not upheld against MyCSP. I agree that there was an unacceptable delay in putting Miss M’s pension into payment. However, I consider the £850 offer of compensation from MyCSP is fair and reasonable.

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

Complaint summary

Miss M has complained that there was a delay in her benefits being paid from 17 March 2015, when she retired, to 15 June 2015, when her benefits came into payment.

Ombudsman’s Determination

 Complaint summary

Mr Davies’ complaint, which is against the Council, is as follows:

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr S’s complaint is upheld against Kuhrt Leach LLP, also referred to as K L Pensions Administration Services. To put matters right Kuhrt Leach LLP should provide a full written response to Mr S’s questions regarding his Scheme funds, including the current value, and to assist him in exercising his statutory rights. Kuhrt Leach LLP should also pay Mr S, £1,000, to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to him by their maladministration. 

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs R’s complaint is upheld in part to the extent that this matter has caused her significant distress and inconvenience. To put matters right, DDC should pay Mrs R £500 compensation for the non-financial injustice identified.

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

Complaint summary

Mrs R’s complaint against DDC and KCC concerns DDC’s decision to refuse Mrs R’s application for the early payment of her deferred pension benefits under regulation 30(2) of the LGPS Regulations 2007.