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.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mrs 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

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Dr E’s complaint and no further action is required by Plymouth University.

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

Complaint summary

Dr E is complaining that Plymouth University incorrectly recorded her service in the TPS and, as a result, her benefits at retirement were less than she expected.  Dr E says she made the decision to retire based on the information Plymouth University had provided prior to her selected retirement date in March 2016.