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.

Outcome

I do not uphold Dr D’s complaint and no further action is required by Suffolk Life.

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

Complaint summary

Dr D was provided with an incorrect contributions statement as at 1 April 2013 (the April 2013 Statement), that indicated that a payment of £40,000 (net) had been received in the 2011/12 tax year.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr D’s complaint and no further action is required by the Trustee and Weetabix, the company.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr N has complained that he had to pay more income tax than was necessary, due to Honeywell’s method of funding his additional pension.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mrs D’s complaint and no further action is required by Teachers’ Pensions

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

Complaint summary

Mrs D has complained that Teachers’ Pensions calculated her pension benefits incorrectly as a result of an error in her pensionable service history.

Ombudsman’s Determination

 Complaint Summary

Miss E’s complaint against MyCSP and the Cabinet Office is about the calculation and payment of her benefits under PCSPS and CSCS, and the subsequent mismanagement of her complaint.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s decision and reasons

The complaint should be partly upheld against MyCSP because:

• of the delay in paying Miss E the compensation lump sum due to her under CSCS; and
• of mismanagement of her complaint.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint Summary

Dr D has complained that she has been wrongly classified as a locum rather than a Type 2 practitioner that consequently her pension contributions have been calculated on the wrong pensionable earnings, and all of the respondents have delayed rectifying the matter.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr L’s complaint and no further action is required by the Cabinet Office and MyCSP.

Complaint summary

Mr L has two complaints:

• He disagrees with the way in which his Widows’ Pension Scheme (WPS) debt has been calculated; and
• He disputes that, prior to his retirement, he was provided with an opportunity to pay the outstanding WPS contribution.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr L’s complaint and no further action is required by Williams Lea.

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

Complaint summary

Mr L’s complaint is that Williams Lea did not have the authority to deduct its 1% employer’s contribution from an unconnected element of his salary because he was using his full 15% allowance towards his pension contributions to the Plan.