Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr L’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right the Authority should allow Mr L’s appeal to the Board of Medical Referees (the Board) on the question of whether Mr L has a qualifying injury, as defined by the rules of the Scheme.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs K’s complaint is upheld, and to put matters right Fast Pensions should pay Mrs K the lump sum death benefit of £79,160.94, plus £1,600 for her distress and inconvenience. Fast Pensions should also pay any tax charges that arise due to the late payment of the lump sum death benefit.

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 NHS Pensions shall pay Mrs S £2,000 for the significant distress and inconvenience caused, plus £1,132.71 interest in respect of the return of her pension contributions, and issue any necessary forms to Mrs S to enable her to claim her retirement benefits from age 60. ESHT should refund to Mrs S her pension contributions from 29 September 2001 to 31 March 2015.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr E’s complaint is upheld, and to put matters right Fast Pensions should provide Mr E with the information he requested and assist in allowing him to exercise his statutory right to a transfer to a provider of his choice, if he so wishes. Fast Pensions should also pay Mr E £2,000 to reflect the prolonged distress and inconvenience caused to him by its maladministration.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr Y’s complaint is upheld, and to put matters right Fast Pensions should answer his queries about the Plan and assist him in exercising a statutory right to a transfer out of the Plan to a named pension arrangement that is willing to accept it, if he so wishes. Fast Pensions should also pay Mr Y £2,000 to reflect the prolonged significant distress and inconvenience caused to him by its maladministration.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Miss N’s complaint is upheld, and to put matters right Fast Pensions should provide a full response to Miss N’s questions about the status and security of the Plan and assist her in exercising her statutory right to a transfer out of the Plan to a named pension arrangement that is willing and able to accept it, if she so wishes. Fast Pensions should also pay Miss N £2,000 to reflect the prolonged significant distress and inconvenience caused to her by its maladministration.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr Y’s complaint is upheld against Fidelity only. To put matters right, Fidelity should pay £6,275.69 into Mr Y’s Self Invested Personal Pension (SIPP) in recognition of the transfer value he has lost due to Fidelity’s maladministration. Fidelity must also pay him £500 in recognition of the significant distress and inconvenience it caused.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint Summary

Mrs N is complaining that TP have refused to allow her to commute her pension for a higher lump sum, and disputes whether or not the lump sum application form was completed fully.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld against TP because Mrs N’s application form to commute her pension for a higher lump sum did not contain a completed declaration.  Having treated an incomplete form as a completed declaration amounts to maladministration.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr S’ complaint is upheld and to put matters right Fidelity should pay compensation in recognition of the financial loss he has suffered.

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

Complaint summary

Mr S’ complaint is that Fidelity has not transferred his benefits from the Scheme to another pension arrangement of his choice, despite him completing all of the requirements within the timeframe set by Fidelity.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr N’s complaint is upheld and, to put matters right AJ Bell should compensate Mr N for the difference between what his SIPP was worth when it crystallised and what it would have been worth, had his SIPP transfer not been delayed.

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