BT Pension Index Linking

Ripoff_2

RedTed wrote: »

Just to reiterate that I have various documents regarding the use of RPI as the measure of increase, including the 1993 booklet and some subsequent literature including one specifically entitled 'Guide to the Pensions Increase'.
It is simply a money saving and positive accounting scam for BT's benefit.
The problem is that the lets just give up and wring our hands attitude of the Trustees and the unions means that BT will only face individual complaints, which is precisely what it wants.
It's really quite shameful and I speak as an ex CWU/BTUC latterly full time rep.
Only a class action will suffice but without support that is not going to happen, despite the fact that the entire basis of the argument is open to serious legal debate.

I agree, hence why I am encouraging all BT and BA plus other ex public sector pensioners to join NFOP, (The National Federation of Occupational Pensioners) at NFOP.org.uk it's only £15 to join for the year till the 1st Jan then it goes up to £18.20. See website for details.

I see this as the body where we can all get together to form the class action you are speaking of. I have joined myself but have nothing directly to do with the NFOP other than as a soon to be member. They offer legal advice and local groups that we could use to start our legal assault from, it's a start and it may not end up being the right organisation but it's better than we have now, which quite frankly is nothing.

This forum and the RPI to CPI EDM 1032 forum is our focal point at the moment but the NFOP could get ALL together under one campaign. They are also in touch with the (Civil Service pension Alliance), CSPA. They are seeking the legal action you speak about. However BT/BA etc are slightly different and the argument is slightly different being a private pension scheme.

Also take a look at UKuncut, google it, or twitter it, you may find this interesting.

Haybob

Don't give up hope RedTed, it is important to keep spreading the word and to fight this injustice with all affected be they public servants, private company employees and OAPs, they have all been stitched up. The last government paid at the ballot box for their 10p tax ripoff, and this lot will do the same once people realise how much of a ripoff it is. I to spent years as a CWU rep and rhave tried highlighting it to the retired members section, below is a copy of a CWU letter published recently. I don't expect much until we unite with all affected to demonstrate the strength of feeling against this injustice

If you are a member of the BT Pension Scheme, you will have received a communication today from BT explaining that in future BTPS Section A and B pensions in payment, and Section C deferred pensions will increase in line not with the Retail Price Index but in line with the Consumer Price Index. This is a change that results from a government decision, announced in July, that in future state benefits and public sector pensions will be increased in line with CPI rather than RPI.

The BTPS Trustees are also going to write to all BTPS members on the issue.

Because the BT Pension Scheme rules tie indexation to the government's Pensions Increases Order (an order laid before parliament every Autumn, stating what the level of inflation is, for indexed benefits), this government decision has a direct impact on most BTPS pension benefits.

This is not a decision taken by either BT or the BTPS Trustees. The impact flows through automatically to the BTPS because of the way the indexation rules of the BTPS are constructed. Many ex-public sector and private sector pension schemes will be affected by this government decision.

The government's decision on pensions indexation is of course directly related to its policy of cutting public expenditure. The CPI almost always comes out lower than the RPI so this government decision will reduce public expenditure on both state benefits and its own public sector pension schemes.

And it is inevitable that this decision will result in detriment for BTPS members when they retire - or leave BT and put their BT pension into deferment - as it is highly likely that, in most years, CPI will generate a lower measure of inflation than RPI. Pension increases will therefore be lower than they would have been. That's because of the way the CPI is constructed. It excludes certain items of expenditure (notably those related to housing costs) from the basket of goods assessed in compiling the index. It is also calculated in a different way to RPI, and this too generally means that inflation appears lower under the CPI. On average, over the last 20 years or so that the CPI has been in existence, inflation as measured by CPI has been about 0.75% a year lower than RPI.

The change to CPI has no impact on the way pensions in the BTPS will accrue until retirement. But it is clear that the change to CPI will have an impact on Section A/B pensions in payment and on deferred pensions.


It will also have an impact on BTPS Section C pensions in deferment, as the Section C rules on deferred pensions tie increases to those deferred pensions to the government's measure for inflation - in future therefore to CPI. It is not currently clear how the government's change will impact on Section C pensions in payment. The rules of this part of the scheme are quite complex. The Company and the BTPS Trustees are therefore taking legal advice on this aspect of the issue.

We have already agreed with BT that this matter will be discussed between the company and the unions. The unions will be seeking to ameliorate this decision as far as possible. Given the recent changes made to the BTPS to make the scheme sustainable for the longer term, it is clearly going to be viewed by BTPS members as totally unacceptable that they must now suffer further detriment. We will be stressing this to BT in our talks with them on this issue.

We will also be seeking to lobby politically against this government decision. You are entitled to view this as a totally unwarranted attack by the government on your savings for retirement.

It is also already clear from the announcement that BT has made today to the City that this decision is likely to reduce the BTPS pensions scheme deficit. Clearly, if pensions in payment or deferment increase by less, this will reduce the scheme's liabilities and therefore reduce the deficit. The precise impact on the deficit will need to be calculated by the scheme's independent Actuary at the next scheme valuation, but today BT has announced that the deficit used for accounting purposes in the company's own balance sheet (the so called IAS 19 figure) has reduced by some £2.9bn. This is clearly a massive reduction in the deficit

We will issue further communications on this issue in due course, when we have met BT to discuss it.

Ripoff_2

All, BT Pensioners.

Has anyone who left BT after 1st April 2009 had any communication from the Trustees yet?

I believe people have had letters who left before the 1st April 2009, perhaps a few could confirm that please.

Thanks

JohnB47

Ripoff wrote: »

All, BT Pensioners.

Has anyone who left BT after 1st April 2009 had any communication from the Trustees yet?

I believe people have had letters who left before the 1st April 2009, perhaps a few could confirm that please.

Thanks

I left in 1998 and started drawing my BT pension in 2001. I have had a letter from the Trustees.

chris_m

Just received an email sent to Section C members in the BT Pension Scheme ;

Impact of Government’s decision on future pension increases on the BTPS - update for Section C members

On 4 November 2010, BT announced how indexation of pensions for BT Pension Scheme (BTPS) members would be affected following the Government’s decision to use the Consumer Prices Index (CPI) rather than the Retail Prices Index (RPI) as the inflation measure for pension and lump sum increases.

At that time, we said the wording of the Scheme Rules for Section C pensions in payment is different to the wording for Section C preserved pensions for deferred members. Following discussions with the Trustee and Unions, BT will, for now, continue to use RPI (capped at 5%) for increases to pensions once in payment for Section C members.

I dare say things will flesh out more as time progresses, in particular the "for now" part.

Razorbill_2

All, BT Pensioners.

Has anyone who left BT after 1st April 2009 had any communication from the Trustees yet?

I believe people have had letters who left before the 1st April 2009, perhaps a few could confirm that please.

Thanks

I started to receive my pension after 1 April 09 but have not had any communication either from BT or the trustees.

StevieJ

How long before the govt deem it time to discontinue the RPI index?

Goldwing1

Razorbill wrote: »

All, BT Pensioners.



I started to receive my pension after 1 April 09 but have not had any communication either from BT or the trustees.

I started to receive my BT pension in April this year. I've had nothing from the trustees but there was an article in BT today.

de1amo

As i see this- it has become politically acceptable due to the encumbent government so to those who put con and libs in power Thank you!--i doubt it will ever be 'unpicked' by subsequent governments--i stopped my bt phone service and any connections when i left because this is a clear example of its managements policies!--this is just done for shareholders lining their pockets---i also sold all my shares--when they had a (good) value!!---i expect when cpi goes high they will move the goal posts again to devalue the pensions!!

Old_Slaphead

de1amo wrote: »

As i see this- it has become politically acceptable due to the encumbent government so to those who put con and libs in power Thank you!--i doubt it will ever be 'unpicked' by subsequent governments--i stopped my bt phone service and any connections when i left because this is a clear example of its managements policies!--this is just done for shareholders lining their pockets---i also sold all my shares--when they had a (good) value!!--

No probs.

BTW thanks for providing me with a lousy investment since privatisation (nb you contradict yourself by saying shareholders pockets are being lined but acknowledge the shares no longer provide good value ?????).

Also thank you for, as a company, providing me with a lousy and expensive service over many years.