Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr S’ complaint against LBWF 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, LBWF should pay Mr S compensation for the significant distress and inconvenience caused to him by its mishandling of his case.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs K’s complaint against HCC 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, HCC shall pay Mrs K £500 for the significant distress and inconvenience she has experienced.

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

Complaint summary

Mrs K complains about the decision HCC has made regarding the tier of ill health early retirement (IHER) pension she is entitled to.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr S’ complaint against the Authority 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, the Authority should pay Mr S £500 for the significant distress and inconvenience it caused.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr K’s complaint against the Trustee 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, the Trustee should pay Mr K £500 for the significant distress and inconvenience it caused him.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr E’s complaint against the Trustee and Capita 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, the Trustee should pay Mr E an award of £500, in addition to the £500 that he has already received, in respect of the significant non-financial injustice he has suffered.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr N’s complaint should be partly upheld in that RMSPS should write off the overpayments which are subject to a limitation defence. RMSPS is able to recover the overpayment which occurred from 13 March 2011 onwards.

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

Complaint summary

Mr N is unhappy that RMSPS mistakenly paid him a pension, which it is now asking him to repay.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr Y’s complaint against Equiniti and 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, Equiniti and Veterans UK shall write off that part of the overpayment the recovery of which is statute barred.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr N’s complaint against Dalriada is partly upheld, but there is a part of the complaint I do not agree with. Although part of the complaint is upheld, no further action is required by Dalriada.

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

Complaint summary

Mr N has complained that Dalriada has failed to:

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs N’s complaint against NHS Pensions 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) NHS Pensions shall pay £500 to Mrs N for the significant distress and inconvenience caused to her by its maladministration.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I partly uphold Miss O’s complaint and direct the Cabinet Office to pay Miss O £500 for the loss of expectation and distress and inconvenience she has experienced as a result of the incorrect information she received from MyCSP.

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