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.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mrs R’s complaint and no further action is required by MyCSP and Cabinet Office.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint Summary

Mr D’s complaint against Friends Life is that he is unhappy with the date it has used to calculate his transfer value, as he believes the units were actually sold at a later date and Friends Life has profited from this.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Dr D is unhappy because, as a re-employed retired member, he has to pay higher contributions into the Scheme. As the Scheme is a defined benefit scheme, he will not receive additional benefits for his higher contributions. He is therefore unhappy that he is paying more into the Scheme than others, yet will not derive any additional benefit from it.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs F’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right Prudential should:-

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mrs L’s complaint and no further action is required by NHSBA.

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 JLT or the Trustees.

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

Complaint summary

Mr N’s complaint arises because he considers the Trustees calculated his pension benefits incorrectly.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr N’s complaint and no further action is required by WPD or the Trustees.

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

Complaint summary

Mr N’s complaint is that:

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr B’s complaint is that WMFS had a duty to inform him that he had reached 30 years’ service and therefore could have opted out of the Scheme. He is asking for a refund of the contributions he has paid since reaching the maximum level of service.