Outcome

1. Mrs Y’s complaint against the Council and TP is partly upheld, but there is a part of the complaint I do not agree with.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs S’ complaint against Aon and Prudential 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) Aon and Prudential should each pay Mrs S £250 for the significant distress and inconvenience caused.

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

Complaint summary

Mrs S has complained that she is in receipt of a lower annuity than anticipated, due to delays on the part of the Respondents.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs N’s complaint against the School 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 School should pay Mrs N £500 for the significant distress and inconvenience caused to her by its mishandling of her case.

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

Complaint summary

Mrs N’s complaint is that she has been refused ill health early retirement (IHER).

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I agree that part, but not all, of this complaint should be upheld. To put matters right for the part that should be upheld, AJ Bell should compensate Mr T for the financial loss he has suffered due to the delay in sending the transfer documents via first class post. No directions are made against the Trustees.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs N’s complaint is partly upheld and to put matters right NHSBSA shall allow Mrs N to purchase the additional pension of £750 a year in the Scheme at August 2016 prices through contributions in any two future consecutive tax years up to her 65^th The contributions may be deducted from any future UK relevant earnings, not necessarily from NHS pensionable employment.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint Summary

Dr S has complained that NHS Pensions provided her with incorrect retirement quotes in 2012 and 2014, on the basis of which she decided to reduce her working hours, a year earlier than she would otherwise have done.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

The complaint should be partly upheld against NHS pensions because its errors caused exceptional distress and inconvenience to Dr S.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs W’s complaint against CPF 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) CPF should pay Mrs W £500.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs T’s complaint against Surrey County Council 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) Surrey County Council should pay Mrs T £500 for distress and inconvenience.

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

Complaint summary

Mrs T has complained that her eligibility for ill health retirement benefits has not been properly assessed.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I uphold part of Mr E’s complaint but there is a part which I do not agree with.

The Trustees shall pay Mr E £750 in respect of the significant distress and inconvenience he has suffered.

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

Complaint summary

Mr E is unhappy that the Trustees will not pay him an unreduced pension from age 50.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint Summary

Mr R has complained that the overtime pay he received from Wetton should have been included in his pensionable pay for the purpose of calculating his retirement benefits under the Scheme, and that Wetton and Capita caused delays in providing relevant information.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

The complaint should be partly upheld against Wetton because: