advice needed - refused voluntary redundancy despite being unfit for work

pinkegokane

my mum is 56 and has been off work for the last 4 months due to various reasons of ill health both mental and physical. she is middle management in the local council which is currently in the process of making hundreds of employees redundant. she applied for early retirement on ill health grounds earlier in the year, supported by her GP's statement that she is no longer able to work in the 'short or medium term', but has just had news that this has been refused. in september she will come to the end of her sick pay and be paid nothing, as my dad is considered of a high enough wage bracket to support both of them. the consequence of this is that they are now having to downsize and move out suddenly, which is obviously doing my mum's health no favours.

financially i can understand why they have taken this decision as it's cheaper to keep her on the books on no pay than pay her off. however, as it's not looking at all likely that she'll be able to return to her job for the next year at the very least, how can they justify keeping her on given the mass redundancies being made elsewhere? she will be making no contribution whatsoever to the council so surely the 'being invaluable' reason doesn't wash?

her health is really poor at the moment and she's too ill to fight this but i'm aghast at her treatment and could do with some advice, even if it's just who best to speak to, aside from the union. thanks in advance.

McKneff

There is a big difference between voluntary redundancy and applying for retirement due to ill health, you say that its the latter so you really need to clarify.

pinkegokane

McKneff wrote: »

There is a big difference between voluntary redundancy and applying for retirement due to ill health, you say that its the latter so you really need to clarify.

apologies, long day at work. it's early retirement she applied for, not voluntary redundancy.

McKneff

So what would have been the early retirement benefits.

Could she actually apply for voluntary redundancy,(and then take her personal pension if she has one, what would be the difference in the amount of benfit betwen one and the other
(presumably she has worked there a long time)

SarEl

McKneff wrote: »

So what would have been the early retirement benefits.

Could she actually apply for voluntary redundancy,(and then take her personal pension if she has one, what would be the difference in the amount of benfit betwen one and the other
(presumably she has worked there a long time)

I wouldn't assume that at all. If she only has 6 months entitlement to sick pay and then gets nothing from the employer, that would equate to three months full pay and three months half pay - which would indicate three years continuous service with most local authorities that I know of.

But here isn't nearly enough information here. Early retirement benefits are payable through the LA pension scheme and there is a strict process of assessment - you do not simply get "turned down". So if the OP wants more detailed advice we would need details of why she is unable to return to work and what the employer has done as a result.

zzzLazyDaisy

pinkegokane wrote: »

she applied for early retirement on ill health grounds earlier in the year, supported by her GP's statement that she is no longer able to work in the 'short or medium term', but has just had news that this has been refused..

This could well be the problem. Most pension schemes will only agree to retirement on ill-health grounds if the employee is deemed permanently unfit to do the job that they are employed to do (own occupation schemes) or permanently unfit for any type of employment (any occupation schemes). To say someone will not be able to return to work in the short or medium term, suggests that there may come a time when she will recover sufficiently to return to work.

Your mum needs to ask for a copy of the pension scheme rules, and find out exactly what the criteria are for ill-health retirement.

The point about length of service is also very important - many schemes have a minimum length of service ranging from two to five years, before an employee qualifies to be considered for an ill-health reirement pension.

Is your mum in a union? If so they should be able to explain the rules to her, and help her to appeal the decision if appropriate.

However, ultimately people on this forum cannot really help you as we do not have access to the pension scheme rules.

Pixieboy

Sorry to hear of your Mum's predicament.
The decision not to grant an ill health pension isn't a financial decision - there are strict conditions that need to be met if an ill health pension is to be paid.
Assuming she is subject to the LGPS in England and Wales, the legislation that covers ill health benefits is in Regulation 20 here http://timeline.lge.gov.uk/LGPS2008Regs/SI20100528/20071166.htm#reg20
it has been amended quite a bit so ignore the crossed through bits....
Essentially she must be assessed by an approved independent doctor and a) have her employment terminated on the grounds that her ill-health or infirmity of mind or body renders her permanently incapable of discharging efficiently the duties of her current employment; and
(b) have a reduced likelihood of obtaining any gainful employment before her normal retirement age.
Permanently incapable in this context means until at least the age of 65.

The qualifying period is only 3 months membership, so I assume that isn't the issue.

Assuming these criteria are met there are then 3 tiers of benefits, depending on when it is assessed she would be capable of 'gainful employment', which in this context is 'paid employment for not less than 30 hours in each week for a period of not less than 12 months'.

The scheme has tightened considerably in the last few years and can seem really harsh. At 56, the assessment is effectively being made regarding her chances of recovery over the next 9 years.

She does have the right of appeal against the decision, but before launching into that it is important to consider, objectively, whether she is likely to meet the criteria.

May not be good news, but hope it helps clarify the reasoning.

Could redundancy be an alternative route out, as this would provide unreduced immediate pension benefits... just a though.