Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Ms H’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right the Employer shall pay the missing contributions in respect of Ms H’s pension to the Scheme and arrange for any investment loss to be calculated and paid into the Scheme.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Dr H’s complaint and no further action is required by NHS BSA.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Miss N’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right Topmove shall remedy any financial loss she has suffered. In addition, it shall pay Miss N a distress and inconvenience award in respect of the serious distress and inconvenience she has suffered.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Complaint summary

Dr Millar complains that:

Complaint summary

Mrs X has complained that:

• for early leavers the B & Q Guarantee has not been correctly interpreted or applied (the Calculation Issue);
• that the removal of the B & Q Guarantee for post-Kendall Date service was not valid (the Amendment Issue).

Summary of the Ombudsman’s determination and reasons

The complaint should not be upheld against the Respondents because the Guarantee has been correctly interpreted and was validly removed.

 Subject

In 1996 Mr Cunningham began making additional contributions from his salary to purchase nine additional years in the Plan. In 2000 he transferred to another employer in the group without a break in pensionable service. However, when his payroll record was set up at his new employer they did not arrange for the deduction of the additional service contributions.

Complaint summary

Mrs K has complained that the method by which TP has calculated her retirement benefits has resulted in a pension and lump sum lower than she had planned and was expecting.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

The complaint is upheld against DfE and TP because Mrs K was given misleading information when she asked about the calculation of her pension which she relied on to her detriment. Mrs K was also misinformed about the reason for the change in the calculations which led to a delay in finalising her complaint.