Mrs C complains that due to the mismanagement of her case she has been refused medical retirement and Permanent Injury Benefit. The Deputy Pensions Ombudsman’s determination and short reasons The complaint should be …

Mr A’s complaint concerns the review of his injury benefit carried out in 2012. He has complained that the review was not carried out in accordance with the relevant regulations. The Deputy Pensions Ombudsman’s determination and short reasons The complaint should be uph …

Mr Brunning has complained that, in pursuing his complaint about a review of his injury benefit the West Yorkshire Police Authority (WYPA” will not: award any compensation in respect of his distress and inconvenience, or reimburse him for his legal fees and other associated costs incurred. The Deput …

Subject

Dr Kochan has complained that the NHS BSA have not assessed her eligibility for a permanent injury benefit in a proper manner.

The Pensions Ombudsman’s determination and short reasons

The complaint should be upheld against the NHS BSA because they have not taken all relevant matters into account when considering Dr Kochan’s eligibility for a permanent injury benefit.

Subject

Mr Hughes’ complaint against WYPA, the Scheme’s administrating authority is about their review of his injury benefit award.

The Deputy Pensions Ombudsman’s determination and short reasons

The complaint should be upheld against WYPA because:

• WYPA failed to provide adequate information to Mr Hughes about the possibility that his injury benefit might be reviewed; and failed to consider correctly a request for a further review.

Subject

Essentially, Mrs Wilczynski’s complaint is that she has not been awarded a Permanent Injury Benefit (PIB).

The Deputy Pensions Ombudsman’s determination and short reasons

The complaint should be upheld against NHS BSA to the extent that their decision failed to explain to Mrs Wilczynski why they preferred their medical advisers’ opinion over specialist opinion.

Subject

Miss Thomas has complained that the NHS BSA have not considered her eligibility for a permanent injury benefit (PIB) in a proper manner.

The Pensions Ombudsman’s determination and short reasons

The complaint should be upheld against the NHS BSA because they failed to provide Miss Thomas with any reasoning for their decision.

Complaint summary

Mrs Curtis has complained that the NHS BSA have not considered her eligibility for a permanent injury benefit (PIB) correctly.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s determination and reasons

The complaint should not be upheld against the NHS BSA because they reached their decision in a proper manner, taking into account all of the available evidence and in accordance with the requirements of the Scheme Regulations.

Complaint summary

Mrs Reynolds has complained that she did not receive lump sum payments of £673.46 and £2,736.75 made in 2001.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s determination and reasons

The complaint that she did not receive the lump sum payment of £673.46 should not be upheld because on balance it is more likely than not that this sum was paid to her.

The complaint that she did not receive the lump sum of £2,736.75 cannot be investigated because she was aware of this matter for more than three years before she brought her complaint to me.

Complaint summary

Ms McLoughlin’s complaints against WYPA, (now known as the Police and Crime Commissioner for West Yorkshire), and WYPF are about: