RPI to CPI Early Day Motion 1032

Ripoff_2

JamesU and RichardJ

I don't believe that people have argued with the issue regarding the scheme rules to the extent you are alluding to but the terms and conditions of those rules have certainly misled them.

Many are therefore very disillusioned and angry, and this may well have come to the fore in some of the posts, but I don’t think people were being personal per se.

Many contributors have received much of the advice offered with grace and thanks, myself included. My personal reference to the Booklets and Documents was a specific reply to Bendix and not a general comment as to the rules and the validity of them. I am well aware of the situation regarding the rules and have noted your points before for which I and many are grateful.

teacher_retired

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

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.

But they do now having been motivated by your posts. Thank you so much you've helped the cause tremendously - keep it up!

teacher_retired

Aberdeenangarse wrote: »

Who is? You and Billy No Mates :rotfl:

Keep up the good work your comments are helping to motivate the public sector to join those fighting against this proposed change. I know quite a few people who found out what was going on as a result of the way they felt after reading your contributions. - Thank you.

Old_Slaphead

teacher_retired wrote: »

But they do now having been motivated by your posts. Thank you so much you've helped the cause tremendously - keep it up!

I don't know why you've been dissing me so much. I've helped keep you thread high profile......it's all part of the service

I've also explained to many people the impact of RPI/CPI differences. Let's face it, most either aren't bothered or don't have the foggiest about what I'm telling them - they've got too many current issues to worry about without something that's not going to affect them for 10 or 20 or 30 or 40 years.

Anyway, most will see their DB schemes stopped in the next few years and then, blimey, they'll have to think for themselves about retirement provision and take an interest in esoteric things like types of funds, annuities, drawdown, stockmarkets, interest rates etc etc - whatever will they do then - who'll be there to tell them what to do ????

Good job you're retired teacher retired , eh? Only losing 0.5% a year when, with volatile stockmarkets, dodgy with profits funds, rubbish interest rates, avaricious middle men etc etc it's quite easy to lose 25% of your pension lifesavings in a couple of months...no 'gold plating' to fall back on for future generations but you're still expecting them to pay full whack towards your's. That's what I tell them !

Always pleased to be of help

ps want some chips with that ?

teacher_retired

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.

Just to say thank you for your comments which I neither deride or ignore. Indeed I found them most informative.
In the public sector these annual pension aggreements were given a much higher profile as no doubt you will have gathered from other contributors. This is the basis for the disquiet noted on this thread.
It is going to be interesting to see how this issue develops from March when the representative bodies start their actions. I still feel that where an action is dictatorial unrest ineviably follows and sadly I suspect this is what will happen here.
However I just want you to know that I very much value your view and thank you for sharing it with me.

teacher_retired

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

I don't know why you've been dissing me so much. I've helped keep you thread high profile......it's all part of the service

I've also explained to many people the impact of RPI/CPI differences. Let's face it, most either aren't bothered or don't have the foggiest about what I'm telling them - they've got too many current issues to worry about without something that's not going to affect them for 10 or 20 or 30 or 40 years.

Anyway, most will see their DB schemes stopped in the next few years and then, blimey, they'll have to think for themselves about retirement provision and take an interest in esoteric things like types of funds, annuities, drawdown, stockmarkets, interest rates etc etc - whatever will they do then - who'll be there to tell them what to do ????

Good job you're retired teacher retired , eh? Only losing 0.5% a year when, with volatile stockmarkets, dodgy with profits funds, rubbish interest rates, avaricious middle men etc etc it's quite easy to lose 25% of your pension lifesavings in a couple of months...no 'gold plating' to fall back on for future generations but you're still expecting them to pay full whack towards your's. That's what I tell them !

Always pleased to be of help

ps want some chips with that ?

You seem to have misread me I was thanking you for giving the thread a high profile and by the tone you choose to use motivating many more public sector workers to find out what this issue is all about. I agree with you you have helped the cause tremendously. I won't have the chips though but kind of you to offer.

MEY_3

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'm not sure that what one is told forty years or even five minutes ago is irrelevant at all. There is the issue though that to my knowledge no one was ever given a copy of the trust deed at any point in their employment; access to the trust deed was not readily available; that though the disclaimer appeared, nowhere in any booklet was it stated that pensions went up with index linking in a general sense but that they specifically went up with RPI. If the booklets are meant to be a true reflection of the scheme (and we are in the hands there of the trustees and the employers) no potentially changeable facet should be portrayed as fact. Care was taken to highlight that the period of assessment (September to September) was not a definite. Why not RPI? To answer my own question, probably because no one foresaw that any reputable government would replace RPI, but merely tweak it if it became unsuitable.
Incidentally, annual updates to pension increases were also written in a manner that indicated RPI was ongoing and were not applicable to that year alone. It is only this year that the wording has changed.
None of this includes what individuals were actually told in redundancy and retirement letters. This mess is the making of trustees, employers too, to some degree, but was precipitated by the government, and each party is shrugging its shoulders and pointing the finger of blame at the other.

Haybob

My latest NHS guide to retirement book issued to me on request 3 weeks ago clearly states that increases reflect any rise in the RPI in the 12 month period up to the end of Sept in the previous year.

Is this not a case of mis-selling?

If I buy a car and expect to recieve a Model RPI and all sales literature and verbal questioning confirms my expectation, should I expect to receive a Model CPI on delivery?

shaunrc

I make a comment on this thread from time to time because I am an economist who has the full Chartered Insurance Institute pension qualifications. Indeed I am a monetary economist who discusses inflation and our inflation indices a lot.

I posted before on the differences between our two inflation indices and would just like to make everyone aware that it has come up again this week as the Office for National Statistics has made a change which will influence the inflation numbers (upwards as time goes by in my opinion) and also the difference between CPI and RPI.

For those interested I blog on http://notayesmanseconomics.wordpress.com

RichandJ

Haybob wrote: »

My latest NHS guide to retirement book issued to me on request 3 weeks ago clearly states that increases reflect any rise in the RPI in the 12 month period up to the end of Sept in the previous year.

Is this not a case of mis-selling?

If I buy a car and expect to recieve a Model RPI and all sales literature and verbal questioning confirms my expectation, should I expect to receive a Model CPI on delivery?

Somewhat disingenuous. I don't know of any scheme that has yet updated their booklets to take this very recent (in pension terms) change into account. Many Trustee boards are still waiting on both legal advice & the Govt announced consultation before revised booklets or announcements to members are issued.

Pension administrators, who you will most likely have been in contact with are the PBI, they have no powers to make such changes to scheme literature and may have no instructions from above as to what to do regarding this change.

In this case I feel you are attacking the wrong target, the change to CPI is a Govt proposal and when your booklet was originally produced increases were based on RPI. (The Queen in) Parliament is sovereign and can make whatever changes to any legislation can get through both Houses.