Frozen Police Pension

enigma1259

I have a Police pension that is frozen until my 60th birthday ( I resigned before my 30 years). I will receive a lump sum plus annual allowance. I asked the people dealing with this pension to name my partner so she would be entitled to the 'widows' allowance should anything happen to me. I was told this is not allowed as we are not married. Why is this? My current employer (civil service) have allowed this so why is the Police Pension different?

bendix

enigma1259 wrote: »

I have a Police pension that is frozen until my 60th birthday ( I resigned before my 30 years). I will receive a lump sum plus annual allowance. I asked the people dealing with this pension to name my partner so she would be entitled to the 'widows' allowance should anything happen to me. I was told this is not allowed as we are not married. Why is this? My current employer (civil service) have allowed this so why is the Police Pension different?

Because it's in the rules of the particular pension you belong to.

There . . that was easy, wasnt it?

You know the rules - they have told you what they are. If you want your partner to get the widow's allowance, marry her. Simple.

dunstonh

I have a Police pension that is frozen until my 60th birthday ( I resigned before my 30 years).

It wont be frozen. It will be deferred.

I was told this is not allowed as we are not married. Why is this?

Why aren't you married? Only you can answer that

Most defined benefit schemes restrict it to spouse or civil partner. The scheme is designed to provide family benefits. Historically, that meant being married.

My current employer (civil service) have allowed this so why is the Police Pension different?

The Civil Service classic plus pension and premium pension has the same restriction as the police scheme (widow, widower or civil partner). Money purchase schemes though don't have this. So, the civil service Partnership pension can be left to anybody. The Nuvos scheme allows a declared partner

enigma1259

Thank you for your responses. I do appreciate that there are 'rules' but these need to be changed. Not everyone wants to marry!! And why should they be penalised for such a thing?
Furthermore, if my civil service pension can permit me to name my partner why can't they all? I have paid into the scheme for many years and it is unfair that my partner would not recieve any benefits from it.

I am niave in relation to pensions and the law surrounding it. However 2 situations have come to mind that I would appreciate assistance with.

I reach my 60th birthday, recieve my lump sum and my pension as normal.

I die 2 days before my 60th birthday. Where does my lump sum go?
Where does my pension go? Why does a widow recieve less than the person who's pension it is? After all we have paid into it and deserve it! So where does it go and why?
:eek:

bendix

enigma1259 wrote: »

Thank you for your responses. I do appreciate that there are 'rules' but these need to be changed. Not everyone wants to marry!! And why should they be penalised for such a thing?
:eek:

They shouldn't, but different pension schemes have different rules, as has been explained to you before.

If you don't like the rules, don't join the scheme or make your own provision with one that has rules you like.

It's not rocket science.

dunstonh

Where does my pension go? Why does a widow recieve less than the person who's pension it is? After all we have paid into it and deserve it! So where does it go and why?

This only applies to defined benefit schemes and not defined contribution. On defined benefit schemes you are buying a level of income for you and your spouse. Your contributions an the company contributions pay to meet that benefit. If you increase the benefit then the cost will go up and contributions will increase.

Defined contribution schemes pay out to whoever you nominate. However, over the long term on a £ for £ basis, defined benefit schemes offer better value for money for the individual. So, if you dont like the death benefits, you are probably best still joining the scheme but increase your life assurance just in case.

datostar

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]From the National Association of Retired Police Officers:-
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]'Although we deal with the subject quite often the issue of Post Retirement marriages is one that still causes considerable correspondence; telephone enquiries and concern from those people affected.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]In 1978 pension provision was made for the first time for widows of post retirement marriages and this was a considerable improvement to the police pension scheme. The widow of a police pensioner - who has service since that date - is now entitled to a pension regardless of when the marriage occurred but such a pension is only based upon contributions since April 1978.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]NARPO, along with many other Pensioner organisations, has striven to persuade the Government to make the provisions retrospective but without success, and in the realisation that any retrospective improvement would have to be paid for retrospectively. The provisions introduced in 1978 had to be paid for and pension contributions were increased from 7% to 11%. The serving officers would certainly not be prepared to pay additional contributions and the Government is inflexible in its refusal to put further burdens on the taxpayer. It is also apparent that any concession granted to the police pensioner would, in addition, also have to be applied to all other public sector pensioners.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]What has to be borne in mind is that the Police Pension scheme is not funded and monies paid by our members whilst they were serving were used to help pay the pensioners of that time. The current contributions of 11% now being paid by the serving officers are going towards paying the present pensioner. The extra money paid for the widow’s portion provided cover for the current spouse under the, then, existing Police Pension Regulations.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]There have been considerable improvements to the Police pension scheme since its commencement but any improvement to a scheme will always leave behind people who cannot benefit. This happened when widows’ pensions were first introduced as Flat Rate Pension (and there are still many of these about), when the widow’s rate was increased to a third in 1956 and to a half in 1972. There always has to be a cut off point and, whilst in the case of post retirement marriages, there does seem to be some inequalities, it has to be remembered that officers taking up the option to up-rate in 1972 were not making provision for the widow of a post retirement marriage as such a provision did not exist at that time.'[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Note that this refers to the pre-2006 'old' scheme. The 'new' scheme does provide for a co-habitee pension but there are quite stringent qualifications. As others have stated, if you were to marry, your prospective widow would qualify for a pension. It's not a question of you being forced to marry, it's a matter of the scheme rules.
[/FONT]

Andy_L

If you haven't been in the civil service to long you could transfer your police pension into the civil service scheme and thus it would pay out to a partner not just a spouse.
However the calculations they do would include the fact that the CS scheme has more generous survivor benefits (as it includes partners) so they would reduce the value appropriatly

StephenM_2

dunstonh wrote: »

Most defined benefit schemes restrict it to spouse or civil partner. The scheme is designed to provide family benefits. Historically, that meant being married.

Mine (private sector final salary) says "If you are not married, the spouse's pension can be paid, with the Trustee's approval to another person who was financially dependent on you at the time of your death". It then goes on to say you can nominate someone as financially dependent.

Zelazny

As has been highlighted here, different schemes have different rules.

The scheme will be funded based on the rules (with a large input from the taxpayer, as this is not a private sector pension, and so doesn't have to actually be able to pay for itself). You can surely see that it costs more to provide benefits in the case of unmarried partners than it does not to provide such benefits, so you have to think about where that money is to come from?

You say: "I have paid into the scheme for many years and it is unfair that my partner would not recieve any benefits from it."

The police pension scheme pays benefits equal to 1/60th of your final pensionable salary for each year of service, plus a further 1/60th of your final pensionable salary for each year of service over 20 (e.g. after 20 years, each additional year grants 2/60 instead of 1/60), to a maximum of 2/3 of your final pensionable salary (after 30 years). This is incredibly generous.

Consider a person on a salary of 30,000. In one year they'd pay in 11% x 30000 = 3,300 and this would buy them an additional £500 p.a. of pension, index linked and including a spouse's benefit. Look at the actuarial tables, and you'll see that for a 60 year old man to purchase £500 p.a. of index linked pension with spouse attached would cost somewhere in the region of £20,000. That's not taking into account the fact that past 20 years service, you get twice the benefit and that it's based on Final Salary, so any pay rises in later years are magnified in value. To buy the same benefit with no spouse pension attached would still be over £15,000 according to my figures (which I admit may be out of date).

So yes, you've paid into the scheme for many years, but that doesn't mean that you deserve more than the scheme rules say. The scheme rules have not changed to penalise you - in fact you're already getting a great deal.

molerat

If he was still serving in 2006 the op would have been given the opportunity to transfer to the new scheme which does have that benefit.