RPI to CPI Early Day Motion 1032

pjala

An interesting article from the daily Torygraph on CPI/ RPI and pensioner inflation. Note this was from Dec 2006, when Labour was in power, and it was acceptable to attack the "Labour" CPI rate.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1535928/Revealed-the-real-rate-of-inflation.html

There has been no change since then, but a change in Government.

Old_Slaphead

Interested_Taxpayer wrote: »

And of course those with very large chips on their shoulder.:eek:

Yet another withering response - ouch!

Is that your standard reply to anyone who doesn't concur with your views because you don't seem to want to challenge anything I say.

Old_Slaphead

teacher_retired wrote: »

I would like to thank Bendix etc for their contributions At first I thought they were a distraction but in fact I have found out from many people that they have made them aware of the threat to their pensions and thus helped to further raise peoples awareness of ths issue. This can only help so thank you for furthering our cause.

Just goes to show how lazy your average FS scheme member is -they sign up for a pension on day one then forget about it until the day they retire.

Most people I know in public services haven't got a clue re. pensions, what they're worth and how they work.

Ripoff_2

Online debate on RPI/CPI starting today at 12:00 http://www.schemexpert.com/Defined-benefit/Online-debate-the-switch-from-RPI-to-CPI you will have to register beforehand

Andy_L

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

Most people haven't got a clue re. pensions, what they're worth and how they work.

Fixed that typo for you :-)

Ripoff_2

bendix wrote: »

It beggars belief, doesnt it.

Biggest con trick for years, my a**e.

Awful, awful, disgraceful self-absorbed selfishness. Me me me me me. I deserve it. It's my money, blah blah blah. Everyone has got to look after me and pay for my pension.

Actually Bendix my PRIVATE PENSION for which I PAID for over the past 40 years is actually MY MONEY. I had a contract with my employer and dutifully paid for my indexed linked pension each month for 40 years. The pension quoted RPI in all the booklets and documents I received from my employer and Trustees, and that was for all the time I worked for them, but it's only now, after I have retired that I find that I could be reduced to the lesser CPI by the action of this Government.

So, before you castigate people and accuse them of being self-indulgent PLEASE know your FACTS. I have NEVER expected anyone else to pay for my pension. I PAID for it myself to secure my retirement over the past 40 years. So all I want is WHAT I PAID FOR, an RPI indexed linked pension, as I was advised on more than one occasion that was what I was purchasing.

Ripoff_2

Getting back to the point of this forum

114 MP's have signed the EDM so far, many thanks for everyone who took the trouble to contact their MP's.

LAB = 92 LD = 4 CON = 0 OTH = 18

Alliance Party = 1
Democratic Unionist Party = 6
Green Party = 1
Independent = 1
Labour Party = 92
Liberal Democrats = 4
Plaid Cymru = 3
Scottish National Party = 3
Social Democratic and Labour Party = 3

You can form your own opinions as to why not one Tory MP has supported your request to sign the EDM. I can not believe that not one Tory MP has his or her doubts about this change.

I also believe that the EDM is NOT asking too much, just to step back, have a re-think and make sure that this policy was in fact the right one. Do a full impact analysis and be really certain that this change will not cause hardship and poverty. NOT Too much to ask is it?

The FIGHT continues! Remember the Rally and Lobby of MP's on the 1st March in London. The more people that attend the better!

scottiepaul

Scheme booklets and other correspondence are ovverriden by the Trust Deed and Rules of the Scheme.

That has been the common law position for almost two decades. A booklet only describes the provision of benefits under the Trust Deed and Rules at a particular point in time. They confer absolutely no contractual right on a member whatsoever.

At the time they were issued it was correct, the Rules provide for statutory increases in payment, which at that time was RPI up to 2.5%/5% depending on date of accrual.

However the statutory basis has changed, and as RPI is not hardcoded into your Rules CPI flows in automatically.

The argument that you were promised something on the basis of a booklet would result in the position where Schemes could never be amended in any way for anything.

I'm not saying I agree with what the government is doing, the position creates an absurd lottery on the basis of the drafting preferences of the Scheme's lawyers at the time (i.e. whether they stipulated RPI on the basis it was the statutory minimum at the time and noone had any reason to suspect it would be changed 10 years ago; or made generic references to increases as required by statute).

However it is difficult to see any legal basis for a challenge. Your Scheme Rules say what they say, the Trustees have a duty to pay benefits on the basis of the Rules, and if the Rules say follow statute, they have to follow statute.

What you were told when you joined the Scheme 40 years ago is, to be frank (and I don't mean this in a rude way), irrelevant.

RichandJ

scottiepaul wrote: »

Scheme booklets and other correspondence are ovverriden by the Trust Deed and Rules of the Scheme.

That has been the common law position for almost two decades. A booklet only describes the provision of benefits under the Trust Deed and Rules at a particular point in time. They confer absolutely no contractual right on a member whatsoever.

At the time they were issued it was correct, the Rules provide for statutory increases in payment, which at that time was RPI up to 2.5%/5% depending on date of accrual.

However the statutory basis has changed, and as RPI is not hardcoded into your Rules CPI flows in automatically.

The argument that you were promised something on the basis of a booklet would result in the position where Schemes could never be amended in any way for anything.

I'm not saying I agree with what the government is doing, the position creates an absurd lottery on the basis of the drafting preferences of the Scheme's lawyers at the time (i.e. whether they stipulated RPI on the basis it was the statutory minimum at the time and noone had any reason to suspect it would be changed 10 years ago; or made generic references to increases as required by statute).

However it is difficult to see any legal basis for a challenge. Your Scheme Rules say what they say, the Trustees have a duty to pay benefits on the basis of the Rules, and if the Rules say follow statute, they have to follow statute.

What you were told when you joined the Scheme 40 years ago is, to be frank (and I don't mean this in a rude way), irrelevant.

I've already tried this, but anything which doesn't agree with the 'it's so unfair' faction is either ignored or derided.

JamesU

RichandJ wrote: »

I've already tried this, but anything which doesn't agree with the 'it's so unfair' faction is either ignored or derided.

But do also bear in mind not everybody on thread, and lurking, belongs to an "its so unfair" category. I appreciated the analysis by yourself (including other threads), and other OP's which have a better understanding, for balanced opinion with subjectivity removed. Has certainly helped me put things into perspective and formulate my own thoughts and views on the matter.

JamesU