Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr N’s complaint against AmTrust 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, AmTrust should pay Mr N £500 in respect of the significant distress and inconvenience that Mr N has suffered and follow the directions in paragraph 28 below.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mr Y has complained that Philips failed to inform him that he was eligible to receive an unreduced pension from the age of 58 and are now not willing to back date payment to his 58^th

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

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

Complaint summary

Mrs A’s complaint concerns Aviva’s decision not to pay her the annuity as a lump sum payment.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint Summary

Mr D has complained that Kier failed to calculate interest payable as a result of the late payment of his LGPS pension in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld against Middlesbrough because it is responsible for ensuring that Mr D receives the benefits he is entitled to under the LGPS, including any interest due.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr K’s complaint is upheld and, to put matters right, Interactive shall (1) waive or reimburse any costs associated with selling investments in the SIPP, (2) credit the disputed contribution back to the employer’s bank account, (3) credit to the same account, a sum equal to the interest the disputed contribution would have earned had it been cancelled and returned, and (4) pay Mr K £500 in respect of the significant distress and inconvenience this matter has caused.

Ombudsman’s Determination

I do not uphold Mr S’ complaint and no further action is required by the Respondents.

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

Complaint summary

Mr S has complained that DCCG misreported his redundancy entitlement to NHS BSA, when saying that he is subject to Agenda for Change redundancy terms as opposed to Very Senior Manager (VSM) terms, which he says he is contractually entitled to. As a result, NHS BSA has been paying the incorrect level of pension.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

Complaint summary

Mr L has complained that when LFRS calculated his pensionable salary, pay increases he received in the final two years of service were not included. This occurred because, in a prior year, he received an additional allowance which was since removed.

Mr L argues that the allowance, along with the pay increases, should have been used for the purposes of establishing his final pensionable salary.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr S’ complaint and no further action is required by NWSSP.

Complaint summary

Mr S has complained that he has been provided with incorrect information and pension forecasts over a number of years. He says he has relied on this information in making financial plans and decisions and that the errors have caused him a significant amount of distress and inconvenience.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

Complaint summary

The Plan is a pension policy which includes life cover. Mr D is unhappy that an increasing proportion of his monthly contribution into the Plan has gone towards life cover rather than the pension element of the policy. He says it was not disclosed to him how the split between his pension and life cover would work, and an excessive amount has been paid towards life cover.