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.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Miss A’s complaint and no further action is required by Ministry of Justice

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

Complaint summary

Miss A has complained that MoJ has reached a perverse decision when deciding not to exercise their discretion to allow Miss A early payment of her pension on compassionate grounds.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Ms N’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

Ms N’s complaint is that she was provided with misleading and incorrect information in relation to her eligibility for a temporary pension from the Scheme. She relied on this information to her detriment and she believes she has suffered financially as a result.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr Y’s complaint is that he disagrees with DUKL’s refusal to give consent for him to receive early unreduced retirement benefits.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs S’s complaint against Dossor and Phoenix Life 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:

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Ms M’s complaint and no further action is required by Entrust.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Miss K’s complaint and no further action is required by NHS Business Services Authority.

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

Complaint summary

Miss K’s complaint against NHS Business Services Authority is that NHS Pensions refused her request for early payment of her deferred pension benefits. Miss K believes that she is entitled to claim her pension from age 55.