Complaint summary

Mr McLaughlin has complained that he was not informed in his award letter that his ill health pension was subject to a periodic review, there is no mention of the need for a  periodic review in the booklet headed “Pensions Choices” (the Booklet) and the Department say they have not breached Rule D.5(2) (a) of the Scheme rules (the Rules).

Complaint summary

Mr McSorley’s complaint about the NIPB, the scheme manager, is that he is not being paid the correct percentage of disablement pension and that the correct percentage should be backdated to 2005, when he first started to receive an injury benefit.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s determination and reasons

The complaint should partly upheld against NIPB because even though they did not deal with Mr McSorley’s original appeal in accordance with the regulations, they did so when they dealt with his second appeal.

Complaint summary

Mrs Conroy has complained that Northumbria Police Service, her previous employer,  refused to allow her to take her deferred pension early. She also complains that they delayed in dealing with her case.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

The complaint should be partly upheld against Northumbria Police Service to the extent that they delayed in dealing with her case and she should be compensated for the resultant distress and inconvenience she suffered.

Complaint summary

Mr Baust has complained that the Trustees:

Complaint summary

Mr Leps complains that the NHS Business Services Authority (the NHSBSA) should honour their commitment to pay his pension benefits. Mr Leps was incorrectly informed he could stay in the Scheme, but his benefits have now been reduced and he is required to repay a substantial overpayment.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

The complaint should be partly upheld against the NHSBSA because:

Complaint summary

Mr Tutt has complained that the Council, the administering authority for the Scheme, have failed to correctly calculate his pension entitlement.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

The complaint should be partly upheld against the Council, as, although Mr Tutt’s pension benefits have been correctly calculated, there were delays in responding to the second stage IDRP and to our service which did cause Mr Tutt some significant distress and inconvenience and for which he should be compensated.

Complaint summary

Miss Khatra has complained that she should receive compensation for a loss of income connected to:

• maladministration of her added years contributions;
• receipt of an incorrect estimate of retirement benefits upon which she based her decision to retire; and
• a delay in paying her benefits.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s determination and reasons

The complaint should be partly upheld against CNWL, to the extent that they compensate Miss Khatra for the distress and inconvenience caused by their maladministration.

Complaint summary

Mr Wightman has complained that the Council has refused to comply with the stage two Internal Dispute Resolution Procedure determination dated 24 November 2010. To put matters right the Council should provide him with the benefits set out in the stage two Internal Dispute Resolution Procedure determination dated 24 November 2010.

Complaint summary

Mr McLachlan has complained that he has not been awarded tier 1 benefits under regulation 20 of the Local Government Pension Scheme (Benefits, Membership and Contributions) Regulations 2007.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

The complaint should be partly upheld against Winchester City Council because they failed to explain their decision to Mr McLachlan and failed to notify of his option to appeal.

Complaint summary

Mr Webber previously complained about the recovery of an overpayment of his pension from TP. This matter has been determined and remitted on appeal. The remaining issue before me is the applicable date for recovery of the overpayment and the quantum of the overpayment.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

The provisions of the Limitation Act 1980 apply because with reasonable diligence the mistake should have been discovered in the 2002/2003 tax year. The six year time period would run from this date.