Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr E’s complaint is upheld, and to put matters right the Trustee shall comply promptly with any valid statutory transfer request that Mr E makes, and offer him a transfer in cash or in specie or a mixture of both, whichever the Trustee considers most appropriate bearing in mind the Plan’s current assets and the amount of the transfer payment net of any early exit penalty that is applicable to him at that time, as set out in the agreement that Mr E signed in 2013.

Ombudsman’s Determination

 Complaint Summary

Mr & Mrs T’s complaint against CAM, MLA and MLT concerns investment advice they received from CAM, MLA and MLT:

• CAM, MLA and MLT incorrectly informed Mr and Mrs T that they could invest the Scheme assets in taxable moveable property; and
• CAM, MLA and MLT’s proposed solution to the situation did not resolve it.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld against CAM, MLA and MLT because:

Ombudsman’s Determination

 Complaint Summary

Mr and Mrs E’s complaint against CAM, MLA and MLT concerns the investment advice they received from CAM, MLA and MLT:

• CAM, MLA and MLT incorrectly informed Mr and Mrs E that they could hold certain machinery as assets; and
• CAM, MLA and MLT delayed in rectifying the matter.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld against CAM, MLA and MLT because:-

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr R’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right Mercer Limited should accept the liability for paying Mr R’s Guaranteed Minimum Pension (GMP).

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

Complaint summary

Mr R is complaining that Mercer and/or the Trustees have not been able to trace his GMP entitlement from the Pension and Life Assurance Plan of Caledonian Veterinary Holdings Limited, which had been transferred to the Scheme in 1993.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Ms S’ complaint is upheld and to put matters right the Council should consider whether Ms S satisfied the criteria for the early release of her deferred pension on grounds of ill health before 16 August 2016 and pay Ms S £1,500 for the distress and inconvenience caused.

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

Complaint summary

Ms S’ complaint is that she has not been awarded the early release of her deferred pension on the grounds of ill health.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

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

The Council shall pay Mr D £500 in recognition of the significant distress and inconvenience caused by its actions.

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

Complaint summary

Mr D’s complaint concerns the Council’s decision not to award him an IHRP from deferred status.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Dr S’ complaint is upheld and to put matters right the Trustee should enhance Dr S’ pension with St James’ Place (SJP) and, it should also pay Dr S compensation for the distress and inconvenience this situation has caused him.

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

Complaint summary

Dr S has complained because he is unhappy with the way that the Trustee has calculated the shortfall of the transfer value of the pension he had in the Scheme.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint Summary

Mr G has complained that USS refused to award him ill health retirement benefits.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

The complaint is upheld against USS because it has not interpreted the Scheme Rules correctly when considering Mr G’s application for ill health retirement benefits. There is no finding of maladministration against the University, so the complaint against it is not upheld.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs R’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right, Hedingham School shall:

Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint Summary

Dr I has complained that that he was not informed that an actuarial reduction would be applied to the added years’ element of his Scheme pension, prior to him applying to take his benefits. He has also complained that he was incorrectly told, in March 2016, that his application could not be withdrawn although he had not yet begun to receive the benefits.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld against NHSBSA because:-