joint pensions-I'm outraged.

sagalout1954

Mrs Andrew4444 - when you get your pension forecast, make sure your full HRP is there (it was introduced on 6 Apr 1978) for the time you were a 'stay at home Mum'.

My forecast 'lost' 15 years of mine which meant I wouldn't be entitled to a full pension! Bit of to-ing and fro-ing and some form filling but thankfully the Pension Service agreed that I was entitled to it and it miraculously appeared. New forecast shows full pension in my own right.

seven-day-weekend

Well done sagalout, how nice for you! I had a pleasant surprise when I got my first forecast in 2004, because I didn't know about HRP and assumed I'd be years short for my pension. It was great to find I only had to make up two years.

Newly_retired

I beleive I'm right in saying that you don't get HRP if you worked part time, or part of a year. Hence I missed out on that. Deferring my state pension brought me a good increase though which helped to compensate.

seven-day-weekend

You can still get HRP if you work part-time if you do not earn enough to pay NI. During most of the 13 years for which I have been granted NI, I was employed as a lollipop lady.

Savvy_Sue

Newly_retired wrote: »

I beleive I'm right in saying that you don't get HRP if you worked part time, or part of a year. Hence I missed out on that. Deferring my state pension brought me a good increase though which helped to compensate.

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

You can still get HRP if you work part-time if you do not earn enough to pay NI. During most of the 13 years for which I have been granted NI, I was employed as a lollipop lady.

I have a feeling it's working part of the year, or swapping who claims the Child Benefit part way through a year, which clobbers the HRP payments. For some reason I think they are only paid if you are eligible for a full year.

Freecall

There is an injustice here however even though it is not the one originally quoted.

If one partner works a lifetime and the other does not, then on retirement a couple’s pension is awarded. But if the non-working spouse did in fact pay sufficient contributions to gain a pension in their own right then the couple’s pension, which would have been given, would then be downgraded to a single person’s pension.

margaretclare

I don't see this. The so-called 'couple's pension' is 160% i.e. one gets 100% from contributions, the non-working spouse gets 60% of that.

If both have contributed then both get a pension in their own right, 100% each, 200% for the couple in fact.

DH and I both contributed and both get pension in our own right i.e. we each get 100%. Actually it's more than that, because SERPS/S2P is added. I don't see where the 'downgrading' comes in.

Freecall

margaretclare wrote: »

I don't see this. The so-called 'couple's pension' is 160% i.e. one gets 100% from contributions, the non-working spouse gets 60% of that.

If both have contributed then both get a pension in their own right, 100% each, 200% for the couple in fact.

DH and I both contributed and both get pension in our own right i.e. we each get 100%. Actually it's more than that, because SERPS/S2P is added. I don't see where the 'downgrading' comes in.

The injustice is simple. If one partner works and pays full contributions, you get 160% between you. If you both work (and therefore pay twice as much), you only get 200% between you ie. 25% more for 100% more contributions.

seven-day-weekend

Freecall wrote: »

There is an injustice here however even though it is not the one originally quoted.

If one partner works a lifetime and the other does not, then on retirement a couple’s pension is awarded. But if the non-working spouse did in fact pay sufficient contributions to gain a pension in their own right then the couple’s pension, which would have been given, would then be downgraded to a single person’s pension.

If each person has paid in their own right, they will each get a full pension i.e. two single person's pensions.

If one has not paid enough they will get one full pension and one 60% pension, i.e. one and two-thirds single person's pensions.

I don't quite see how that is an injustice?

seven-day-weekend

Freecall wrote: »

The injustice is simple. If one partner works and pays full contributions, you get 160% between you. If you both work (and therefore pay twice as much), you only get 200% between you ie. 25% more for 100% more contributions.

Right I see where you are coming from now, only 25% more for paying in all your life than someone who has never paid a penny.

This is how it always is though, isn't it?.

I don't see what can be done about it really. People need to have enough to live on.