Skip to main content

Armed Forces Pension Scheme (PO-7911)

Complainant:
Complaint Topic:
Ref:
Outcome:
Respondent:
Type:
Date:

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs D’s complaint against Veterans UK is partly upheld, but there is a part of the complaint I do not agree with. To put matters right (for the part that is upheld) Veterans UK should pay Mrs D an additional £250 for non-financial injustice.

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

View determination

Download

Related decisions

Teachers’ Pension Scheme (PO-5682)

Complainant:
Complaint Topic:
Ref:
Outcome:
Respondent:
Type:
Date:

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs S’s complaint against TP and The Manchester College is partly upheld, but there is a part of the complaint I do not agree with. To put matters right (for the part that is upheld) TP should pay Mrs S £350 and The Manchester College should pay Mrs S £250.

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

View determination

Download

Related decisions

Aviva Personal Pension Plan (PO-7401)

Complainant:
Complaint Topic:
Ref:
Outcome:
Respondent:
Type:
Date:

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr N’s complaint against Aviva is partly upheld. To put matters right, in 28 days from the date of this determination, Aviva should pay Mr N £1,990.24 which includes:

  • £1,676.69, representing loss of tax free cash;
  • £13.55 which is the difference between £277.42 (the original calculated loss) and £290.97 (the correct calculated loss); and
  • £300 being the remaining amount to be paid for distress and inconvenience.

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

View determination

Download

Related decisions

Royal London Personal Pension Plan (PO-9017)

Complainant:
Complaint Topic:
Ref:
Outcome:
Respondent:
Type:
Date:

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr N’s complaint against Royal London is partly upheld, but there is a part of the complaint I do not agree with. To put matters right (for the part that is upheld) Royal London should pay Mr N £500 compensation for the significant distress and inconvenience caused to him by their admitted failing in this case.

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

View determination

Download

Related decisions

Dengie Crops Limited Staff Pension Scheme (PO-3870)

Complainant:
Complaint Topic:
Ref:
Outcome:
Respondent:
Type:
Date:

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr N’s complaint against Dengie is partly upheld. To put matters right (for the part that is upheld) Dengie should, within 28 days, provide Mr N with a Special Member Letter setting out all the Scheme benefits to be provided to him as set out in his letter of 16 May 2016.

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

View determination

Download

Related decisions

Complainant:
Complaint Topic:
Ref:
Outcome:
Respondent:
Type:
Date:

Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint Summary

Mr L has complained that NHS BSA has failed to identify errors in its calculation of the cost of reinstating his late wife’s (Mrs L) part-time service in the Scheme. Specifically, Mr L says that information relating to Mrs L’s hours worked on which NHS BSA has based its reinstatement offer is incorrect. Mr L also submits that the dates of Mrs L’s employment are incorrect.

View determination

Download

Related decisions

Local Government Pension Scheme (PO-11921)

Complainant:
Complaint Topic:
Ref:
Outcome:
Respondent:
Type:
Date:

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr Y’s complaint against SCC and LBRC is partly upheld, but there is a part of the complaint I do not agree with. To put matters right (for the part that is upheld) LBRC should pay Mr Y £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to him.

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

Complaint summary

There are two parts to Mr Y’s complaint, which are:

View determination

Download

Related decisions

Police Injury Benefit Scheme (PO-5477)

Complainant:
Complaint Topic:
Ref:
Outcome:
Respondent:
Type:
Date:

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Ms E’s complaint against Thames Valley Police is partly upheld, but there is a part of the complaint I do not agree with. To put matters right (for the part that is upheld) Thames Valley Police should pay Ms E £750 for distress and inconvenience.

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

View determination

Download

Related decisions

Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme and Civil Service Compensation Scheme
(PO-6951)

Complainant:
Complaint Topic:
Ref:
Outcome:
Respondent:
Type:
Date:

Ombudsman’s Determination

 Complaint Summary

Miss E’s complaint against MyCSP and the Cabinet Office is about the calculation and payment of her benefits under PCSPS and CSCS, and the subsequent mismanagement of her complaint.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s decision and reasons

The complaint should be partly upheld against MyCSP because:

  • of the delay in paying Miss E the compensation lump sum due to her under CSCS; and
  • of mismanagement of her complaint.

View determination

Download

Related decisions

Vitalpeak (1987) Executive Pension Scheme (PO-12355)

Complainant:
Complaint Topic:
Ref:
Outcome:
Respondent:
Type:
Date:

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Dr A’s complaint against BSL is partly upheld, but there is a part of the complaint I do not agree with.  To put matters right (for the part that is upheld), BSL should pay £750 to Dr A for the distress and inconvenience caused to him by its maladministration.

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

View determination

Download

Related decisions

Subscribe to Partly upheld