Subject

Mrs Wallace’s complaint is that she has been wrongly refused upper tier ill health retirement.

The Deputy Pensions Ombudsman’s determination and short reasons

The complaint should not be upheld against SPPA as they reached their decision in a proper manner after due consideration of the medical opinion provided.

Subject

Mr Gilliland has complained that NILGOSC refused to award him an ill health retirement pension.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld against NILGOSC because they made their decision following their review of Mr Gilliland’s application for an ill health retirement pension based on an incomplete and insufficient report by Dr Turner and subsequent reports by Dr Maguire and Dr Anderson.

Complaint summary

Ms Sims Williams’ complaint is that Housing & Care 21 (her late husband’s employer) and City of Westminster (who operate the Scheme) failed to consider Mr Sims request for ill health retirement in a timely manner.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s determination and reasons

The complaint should not be upheld against Housing & Care 21 because Mr Sims changed his mind after applying for ill health retirement and subsequently died shortly after his application was reactivated.

Subject

Mr Hill’s complaint is that the Trustees refused to award him chronic ill health benefits from the Scheme.

The Pensions Ombudsman’s determination and short reasons

The complaint should be upheld against the Trustees because they did not take steps to ensure that they had appropriate evidence upon which to base their decision.

Complaint summary

Ms Thomson complains that the Council did not consider her applications for ill-health early retirement from deferred LGPS membership and for early retirement on compassionate grounds.

The Deputy Pensions Ombudsman’s determination and short reasons

The complaint should be upheld against the Council because Ms Thomson was not given an opportunity to consent to release her medical records so that her ill-health application may be reconsidered.

Complaint summary

Mr X has complained that the Council have not properly considered his eligibility for ill health retirement.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld against the Council because they failed to consider Mr X’s eligibility for benefits under Regulation 20 in a proper manner; in particular, they failed to make a decision under Regulation 20(1).

Complaint summary

In essence, Mrs Greene’s complaint is that she has been refused ill health retirement from the date her employment with the Council ended.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld because the Council failed to obtain the information they needed to reach a properly informed decision.

The complaint is not upheld against SYPA.

Complaint Summary

Mr Pratt has complained that his application for the early payment of his preserved benefits on the grounds of ill health has been declined.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld against Veterans UK because they failed to consider Mr Pratt’s claim in a proper manner.

Complaint summary

Ms Benker has complained about the decision reached in 2012 not to award her an ill health pension as from 2007, when her employment was terminated.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s determination and reasons

The complaint should not be upheld against GMPF because it has no involvement in deciding as to whether or not Ms Benker meets the criteria for an ill health pension from the Scheme.

The complaint should be upheld against LCRC but only to the extent of non-financial injustice Ms Benker has suffered.

Complaint summary

Mr Cooper has complained that BHCC failed to properly consider his eligibility for benefits under Regulation 20 of the LGPS (Benefits, Membership and Contributions) Regulations 2007. In particular, he disagrees with the decision to award him ‘Tier 3’ benefits.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s determination and reasons

The complaint should not be upheld against BHCC because they reached their decision in accordance with Regulation 20.