Mr Weale disagrees with the application of an early retirement factor to his pension. He believes that he is entitled to receive an unreduced pension from age 60. The Pensions Ombudsman’s determination and short reasons The complaint should b …

The Deputy Pension Protection Fund (PPF) Ombudsman has received a reference of a reviewable matter, following a decision by the Reconsideration Committee of the PPF dated 23 September 2011. The referral concerns the Scheme’s risk based levy for the 2010/2011 levy year, which is a reviewable matter under paragraph 19 of Schedule 9 ofthe Pensions Act 2004.

Subject

Mrs Gordon-Smith has complained that Veterans UK provided incorrect information in connection with her divorce.

The Deputy Pensions Ombudsman’s determination and short reasons

The complaint should be upheld against Veterans UK because Mrs Gordon-Smith’s pension credit pension should not have been reduced.

Complaint summary

Mr Auguste has complained that Ascham Homes Limited (Ascham) improperly rejected his application for early payment of his pension on the grounds of business efficiency.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld against Ascham because its decision was perverse.

Complaint summary

Miss Hughes complains that Royal London refused to act on her request to transfer her benefits from her personal pension plan to the Babbacombe Road 1973 Limited SSAS.

Complaint summary

Mrs Butterworth’s complaints about PCCGM are as follows:

Ombudsman’s Determination

 Summary of application

The Ombudsman has received a reference of a reviewable matter, following a decision by the Reconsideration Committee of the Pension Protection Fund (PPF) dated 27 February 2015. The referral concerns the decision, by the Board, not to treat Mr N’s transferred-in pension as a money purchase benefit.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Dr T’s complaint and no further action is required by NHS BSA.

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

Complaint summary

Dr T’s complaint arises because NHS BSA rejected his application for Temporary Injury Allowance (TIA).

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr D’s complaint against Atkin and the Trustees 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) the Trustees should write off the overpayments which are subject to limitation defence. The Trustees are able to recover the overpayments which occurred from 25 May 2010 onwards.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mrs N’s complaint and no further action is required by the Council.

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

Complaint summary

Mrs N’s complaint is that she has been refused Tier 1 ill health pension benefits.