Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr E’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right the Cabinet Office should review their 2012 decision to backdate his revised award to 2008. They shall also pay him £500 for distress and inconvenience.

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

Complaint summary

Mr E has complained that he has not been awarded level 1 injury benefits backdated to January 1997.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr D’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right the Trustee shall pay the cost of making good the financial loss Mr D has suffered.

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

Complaint summary

Mr D says the Trustee excessively delayed the processing of his completed AVCs paperwork. He says this held up his annuity purchase, depriving him of income, and by the time his annuity purchase could be completed, the annuity rate had dropped.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr E’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right Mr Farren, as Pensioner Trustee of the Scheme, should provide a full written response to Mr E’s questions regarding his Scheme funds, including the current value, and to assist him in exercising his statutory rights. He should also pay Mr E, £1,000, to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to him by his maladministration. 

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs S’ complaint is upheld and to put matters right Fast Pensions should provide a full written response to Mrs S’s questions regarding the status and security of the Plan.  They should also clarify her right to access her pensions fund and any penalties that apply, and assist her in exercising her statutory right to a transfer if she so wishes.  Fast Pensions should also pay Mrs S £1,000, to reflect the significant distress and inconvenience caused to her by their maladministration.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs R’s complaint is upheld in part to the extent that this matter has caused her significant distress and inconvenience. To put matters right, DDC should pay Mrs R £500 compensation for the non-financial injustice identified.

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

Complaint summary

Mrs R’s complaint against DDC and KCC concerns DDC’s decision to refuse Mrs R’s application for the early payment of her deferred pension benefits under regulation 30(2) of the LGPS Regulations 2007.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr N’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right Fast Pensions should provide a full written response to Mr N’s questions regarding the status and security of the Plan, including the current value, and assist him in exercising his statutory right to a transfer if he so wishes.

Fast Pensions should also pay Mr N, £1,000, to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to him by their maladministration, which has resulted in him taking out personal loans to pay bills and to help provide for his family.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr R’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right Veterans UK should review the decision not to pay Mr R’s benefits early under article 3061(2).

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

Complaint summary

Mr R has complained that his application for the early payment of his preserved benefits has not been properly considered.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs M’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right TP shall pay Mrs M the maximum lump sum she would have received if she had been allowed to make that choice in January 2016; plus £500 for distress and inconvenience caused.

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

Complaint summary

Mrs M’s complaint is that she has not been paid maximum tax free cash.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint Summary

Mrs T complains that NHSBSA incorrectly decided not to award her Mental Health Officer (MHO) status for parts of her NHS service because the criteria upon which their decision was made are “unclear, unfair, confusing and contradictory”. She considers that she should have been awarded MHO status because:

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs N’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right Fast Pensions should provide a full written response to Mrs N’s questions regarding the status and security of the Plan, including the current value, and assist her in exercising her statutory right to a transfer if she so wishes.

Fast Pensions should also pay Mrs N, £1,000, to reflect the significant distress and inconvenience caused to her by their maladministration.

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