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

Dr Naylor has made the following complaints against the University:
1. The University initially refused to process her ill-health application and said that the application form should be submitted after she had left employment which would have significantly reduced the pension (due to it being based on part-time service).

Complaint summary

Miss Tracy has complained that she has been refused an ill-health retirement pension and that there were delays in processing her appeals through the Internal Dispute Resolution (IDR) process.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld because there were flaws in the process adopted by the Medical Advisers for deciding whether Miss Tracy’s incapacity was permanent or not.

Complaint summary

Mrs Ascough’s complaint about the Council, the administering authority, is that her deceased husband, Mr P Ascough, should have been considered for an enhanced ill health pension before he left employment. She also believes that she should receive an enhanced pension and lump sum payment following his death.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reason

The complaint should not be upheld against the Council because I am unable to find maladministration on their part.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mrs N’s complaint against NHS BSA is partly upheld. To put matters right (for the part that is upheld) NHS BSA should decide whether Mrs N should be granted the opportunity to request a reassessment for a Tier 2 pension within three years of the existing Tier 1 award.

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

Complaint summary

Mrs N’s complaint is that she has been refused Tier 2 ill health pension benefits.

Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

I do not uphold Mr N’s complaint and no further action is required by the Council.

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

Complaint summary

Mr N’s complaint is that he has been refused ill health retirement from the date his employment ended with the Council.

Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

Mr L’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right the Committee should pay Mr L £750 for distress and inconvenience caused plus simple interest on the incapacity benefits that would have been payable in June 2014.

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

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr D’s complaint and no further action is required by Teachers’ Pensions.

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

Complaint summary

Mr D has complained that Teachers’ Pensions refused in 2012 to reinstate the ill health pension that he had been receiving.

Complaint Summary

Mrs R has complained that her application for the early payment of her deferred benefits on the grounds of ill health has been declined.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld against Trafford because they failed to consider Mrs R’s application for the early payment of her deferred benefits in a proper manner.

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr S’ complaint is upheld and to put matters right Veterans UK should reconsider Mr S’ 2012 application.

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

Complaint summary

Mr S’ complaint is that he has been refused the early payment of his preserved pension on ill health grounds.