RPI to CPI Early Day Motion 1032

Ripoff_2

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

Seeing that, methinks the gentleman's not for turning.

Seemed to bat away most of Rachael Reeves questions without too much difficulty though, given Labour's record on pensions, that's not really surprising.

Don't be so keen to gloat Old Slaphead because it's not over yet, this is just the beginning, the war has only just begun.

Remember there are 330,000 BT pensioners, plus the other Private Companies like BT who are going to be hit by this and then of course the public sector pensioners. All these pensioners will be very angry about this and remember they all have the vote. I am sure they will use that vote very wisely in any local or national election.

Of course they may even be forced now to join the students, old and young together!

JamesU

Ripoff wrote: »

Don't be so keen to gloat Old Slaphead because it's not over yet, this is just the beginning, the war has only just begun.

Remember there are 330,000 BT pensioners, plus the other Private Companies like BT who are going to be hit by this and then of course the public sector pensioners. All these pensioners will be very angry about this and remember they all have the vote. I am sure they will use that vote very wisely in any local or national election.

Of course they may even be forced now to join the students, old and young together!

Thanks for the prompt that Steve Webb's discussion on pensions was airing, recorded and will see it this evening. From what I have heard so far, the government is not going as far as to introduce legislation allowing for exisiting final salary schemes linked to RPI to be automatically changed to CPI unless there is specific provision for this within the original pension documentation? If so, this would seem a significant u-turn on the plans previously suggested.

JamesU

JohnB47

Ripoff wrote: »

Don't be so keen to gloat Old Slaphead because it's not over yet, this is just the beginning, the war has only just begun.

Remember there are 330,000 BT pensioners, plus the other Private Companies like BT who are going to be hit by this and then of course the public sector pensioners. All these pensioners will be very angry about this and remember they all have the vote. I am sure they will use that vote very wisely in any local or national election.

Of course they may even be forced now to join the students, old and young together!

Great new for those who work for a private company who's pension is specifically linked to RPI but still bad news for me, I'm afraid. BT and the trustees have effectively sold me down the river on the basis that, basically, they're only doing what the government says.

Good old BT. You really value your workers, past and present, don't you?

MEY_3

Returning to the issue of whether the trustees of the BT pension scheme are not the real target, but the government and BT themselves, I quote the following sent out by the trustees:-

Issue 8: March 2002 "A Guide to The Pensions Increase" the first section is entitled, "How are BTPS Pensions Increased"
Quote,"BT Pensions are increased annually from the start of the first full pay period commencing on or after 1 April. Section A/B pensions are increased in line with the rise in the Retail Prices Index for the twelvemonths to each September...."

This leaflet has further pension information but no qualification or referral to any other document covering the issue or the terms of the Trust Deed. Patently this should not have specified RPI at all but have been qualified as in "currently using RPI " or similar. If this document was explicitly only applicable to the year of issue the whole tense is wrong and therefore the sense conveyed quite different to that which may have been intended. This quote suggests that the formula is ongoing and not just applicable to 2002/3.

Second:-
In the Trustee Report 2009 it states (quote), "The Scheme Rules currently state that the rates of increase for Section A/B and Section C pensions are based on the annual rise in the Retail Prices Index ...."
Although the above quote states "current" it also refers to the Scheme Rules and suggests that the Rules state that pensions are based on RPI but we are now informed this is not so, and my understanding is that the Scheme Trust Deed and Rules actually state:-
"10.2 Pension Increases
Any pension in payment will increased from time to time in accordance with:
the Pension (increase) Act 1971, and

sections 59 and 59A of the Social Security Pensions Act 1975
as if the pension was payable under the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme 1974 (and any amendment or replacement of that scheme).

No mention of RPI there and so the trustee's 2009 report is utterly misleading and completely inaccurate.

Accepting that pension rules booklets state that examples are for illustrative purposes only (referring to the pension rules as the arbiter), in every copy I possess RPI is specifically mentioned throughout. Nowhere does it indicate that RPI is not the true measure for increases. If the trustees were aware that RPI was not necessarily the benchmark then should they not have stated that pensions are merely "indexed linked, currently using RPI" or similar? If the trustees were not aware of the actuality of the true terms of the scheme trust deed or never, in at least 24 years, to my knowledge, represented the true status of the index linking have they not been negligent? If the trustees were not aware what chance the scheme members?
Personally, I feel no party, BT, the Trustees and the Government has covered themselves in glory and that the behaviour of the former and latter is particularly odious.
I'd be interested to learn of suggestions as to how those of us affected can organise themselves to challenge the RPI/CPI switch. I'm not a member of NFOP but would consider joining if I had any confidence that the said body had the intention of assisting in this matter.

Ripoff_2

MEY wrote: »

Returning to the issue of whether the trustees of the BT pension scheme are not the real target, but the government and BT themselves, I quote the following sent out by the trustees:-

Issue 8: March 2002 "A Guide to The Pensions Increase" the first section is entitled, "How are BTPS Pensions Increased"
Quote,"BT Pensions are increased annually from the start of the first full pay period commencing on or after 1 April. Section A/B pensions are increased in line with the rise in the Retail Prices Index for the twelvemonths to each September...."

This leaflet has further pension information but no qualification or referral to any other document covering the issue or the terms of the Trust Deed. Patently this should not have specified RPI at all but have been qualified as in "currently using RPI " or similar. If this document was explicitly only applicable to the year of issue the whole tense is wrong and therefore the sense conveyed quite different to that which may have been intended. This quote suggests that the formula is ongoing and not just applicable to 2002/3.

Second:-
In the Trustee Report 2009 it states (quote), "The Scheme Rules currently state that the rates of increase for Section A/B and Section C pensions are based on the annual rise in the Retail Prices Index ...."
Although the above quote states "current" it also refers to the Scheme Rules and suggests that the Rules state that pensions are based on RPI but we are now informed this is not so, and my understanding is that the Scheme Trust Deed and Rules actually state:-
"10.2 Pension Increases
Any pension in payment will increased from time to time in accordance with:
the Pension (increase) Act 1971, and

sections 59 and 59A of the Social Security Pensions Act 1975
as if the pension was payable under the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme 1974 (and any amendment or replacement of that scheme).

No mention of RPI there and so the trustee's 2009 report is utterly misleading and completely inaccurate.

Accepting that pension rules booklets state that examples are for illustrative purposes only (referring to the pension rules as the arbiter), in every copy I possess RPI is specifically mentioned throughout. Nowhere does it indicate that RPI is not the true measure for increases. If the trustees were aware that RPI was not necessarily the benchmark then should they not have stated that pensions are merely "indexed linked, currently using RPI" or similar? If the trustees were not aware of the actuality of the true terms of the scheme trust deed or never, in at least 24 years, to my knowledge, represented the true status of the index linking have they not been negligent? If the trustees were not aware what chance the scheme members?
Personally, I feel no party, BT, the Trustees and the Government has covered themselves in glory and that the behaviour of the former and latter is particularly odious.
I'd be interested to learn of suggestions as to how those of us affected can organise themselves to challenge the RPI/CPI switch. I'm not a member of NFOP but would consider joining if I had any confidence that the said body had the intention of assisting in this matter.

May I suggest that you email Roger Turner of the NFOP with your findings and ask if that organisation is willing to seek legal advice on BT pensioners behalf. It may be that all BT pensioners need to join NFOP to form a class action against BT and the Trustees.

Roger is looking for any booklets or information like the ones you have illustrated where specific references to RPI are shown. The more can be shown that the Trustees and BT have misled the members then the stronger the case, I believe. Now with Steve Webb's announcement today I would have thought it made the case even stronger because BT is a Private Sector Company after all and has been for many years now.

MEY_3

I did e-mail Roger on 29 Nov 2010 , "Ripoff". Even offered to scan the relevant documents for him. I do understand that his organisation can only represent members but did ask him for an opinion, but no acknowledgement or reply as yet, hence my scepticism.

StevieJ

Ripoff wrote: »

May I suggest that you email Roger Turner of the NFOP with your findings and ask if that organisation is willing to seek legal advice on BT pensioners behalf. It may be that all BT pensioners need to join NFOP to form a class action against BT and the Trustees.

Roger is looking for any booklets or information like the ones you have illustrated where specific references to RPI are shown. The more can be shown that the Trustees and BT have misled the members then the stronger the case, I believe. Now with Steve Webb's announcement today I would have thought it made the case even stronger because BT is a Private Sector Company after all and has been for many years now.

With a govt guarantee.

MEY_3

Yes, "StevieJ" - with a government guarantee to underwrite the scheme, the object of which was to help pacify opposition to, and oil the wheels of, the privatisation of BT. A guarantee that BT had to test in the courts recently to fully establish whether it would be honoured or not, as subsequent governments have been keen to wriggle out of the commitment.

ipri

Does this change in the indexing of pensions affect already retired NHS workers?? thanks

Ripoff_2

ipri wrote: »

Does this change in the indexing of pensions affect already retired NHS workers?? thanks

Yes, I am afraid so. In fact all retired public sector workers! And privatised expublic sector such BT etc.

Deferred members, on the whole pot, will only increase by CPI hence it will cost deferred members dearly the longer they leave their pension pot in the scheme.