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.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr N is unhappy because Aviva will not currently pay him benefits from the Buyout plan. This is despite the fact he has reached age 60, and the Normal Retirement Date (NRD), under the Buyout plan.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr H’s complaint and no further action is required by either HCC or HPF.

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

Complaint summary

This complaint concerns HCC’s decision to refuse Mr H’s application for early payment of his deferred pension benefits under regulation 30(2) of the LGPS Regulations 2007.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr R’s complaint against PIM is partly upheld, but there are several parts of the complaint I do not agree with.  To put matters right (for the part that is upheld) PIM shall take whatever actions may be required by the SSAS’s bank, to allow PIM to be removed as signatory to the bank mandate.

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

Complaint summary

Mr R complains that PIM has acted in maladministration by refusing to: