Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs D’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right the Council shall:

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Miss M’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right the Scheme’s Committee (the Committee), on behalf of the Trustees should reconsider its decision not to pay Miss M a dependant’s pension.

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

Complaint summary

Miss M’s uncle has complained on her behalf because he is dissatisfied that the Committee has not agreed to pay Miss M a dependant’s pension.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs Y’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right Cabinet Office should pay Mrs Y £2,000 to recognise the significant distress and inconvenience she has suffered.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint Summary

Mr Y disagrees with the decision to backdate ill health retirement benefits paid in respect of his late wife only to January 2007. He also disagrees with the decision not to award enhanced benefits.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

The complaint is upheld against TP because it has not considered whether it would be appropriate to exercise its discretion to extend the time limit for an application for ill health retirement benefits.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr Y’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right the Council should submit a fresh retrospective election to TP, requesting that Mr Y’s part-time pensionable service should start from 1 September 2004. TP should then exercise its discretion as to whether it should accept the election, and inform Mr Y and the Council of its decision.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Ms R’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right the Council, should review its original decision not to award Ms R an ill health retirement pension (IHRP).

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

Complaint summary

Ms R’s complaint is that she has been refused a Tier 1 IHRP.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint summary

The Estate has complained that the Plan benefits have been withheld by the Trustee since Mrs E applied for them in 2011.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s decision and reasons

The complaint should be upheld against the Trustee, as there was no legal basis upon which the Plan benefits ought to have been withheld.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr E’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right the Council should reconsider Mr E’s application for an ill health retirement pension (IHRP).

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs N’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right Teddy should establish whether the contributions deducted from Mrs N’s salary were paid into the Scheme. If they were not, Teddy should ensure all of the unpaid contributions are paid into the Scheme. It should also pay an amount equal to the notional fund value had the contributions been paid when they should have been. Teddy should also pay Mrs N £2,500 for the significant distress and inconvenience caused by its maladministration.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint summary

Mr A complains that the Authority is not treating certain elements of his pay as He believes this is contrary to the 2006 Scheme rules, as set out in The Firefighters‘ Pension Scheme(England) Order 2006 (the Rules).