Civil Service pension

moneyistooshorttomention

I retired at 60 from the Civil Service and my current income consists solely of my Civil Service pension.

1. Can people please confirm what exact date each year the Civil Service pension "cost of living rise" happens?
(my pension has been paid to date basically at either the end of the month or the 1st day of next month and therefore I assume that I should have had the full 2.2% annual cost of living rise in the April payment - received by me on 3 April).

2. Do we get the full cost of living rise in the first year of our retirement or do they only give us a proportion in Year 1 according to what point in the "pay year" we retire between 1 April one year and 31 March the following year?
(as it would appear Capita has only raised my pension by about one-third of that 2.2% due).

Thanks in advance.

RichandJ

2. is correct. Google:

civil service pension scheme pro rata increase

and click on the 2nd result.

moneyistooshorttomention

RichandJ wrote: »

2. is correct. Google:

civil service pension scheme pro rata increase

and click on the 2nd result.

Thanks.:T

I've duly googled and come up with a pdf called "Public Service pension increases"
- standard note SN05434
- last updated 2 May 2012"

1. Is that the one you meant? I shall have a good read-through of it if so.

2. This being the case - then am I correct in assuming that the basic gist of it boils down to:
- we will deduct 1/12 of that Year 1 cost of living rise off you according to what point in the "pay year" you retire in (eg retiring half way through the "pay year" would mean only getting 1.1% of this years 2.2% due cost of living rise in Year 1)

- in future "pay years" (ie April 2014 onwards for the rest of my life) I will receive the full CSP cost of living rise for that year?

EDIT: I'm in "every penny matters" position, as that pension is based on such a low salary and my State Pension won't turn up for a couple of years yet....eek!

atush

Don't you have savings and ISAs to help you out?

moneyistooshorttomention

For me personally...the answer is "some savings" (and that is no-ones business except the individual concerned) BUT the whole point is that:

- when in work and the income is "salary" then the yearly cost of living rise is the same regardless of what time of year the person concerned was taken on

Therefore...if the income is "pension" then it is equally the case that the yearly cost of living rise is due to be the same regardless of what time of year the person concerned retires.

Its not up to me (or anyone else) to be expected to take on a lower cost of living rise than due (even if it is only in Year 1) in order to subsidise the "paying organisation" (Capita in this case).

So...back to basics...and the query is whether Capita is or isn't liable to pay that full cost of living rise due in Year 1 OR can or cant get away with paying less than the Year 1 "cost of living rise" due....(and my guess would be that they cant...if only because we should all be warned if they intend to get up such shenanigans).

atush

I guess my point was, that savings or part time jobs in retirement can help out when money is tight.

EDIT: I'm in "every penny matters" position, as that pension is based on such a low salary and my State Pension won't turn up for a couple of years yet....eek!

If every penny matters, and they aren't going to pay you what you had hoped, then consider our debt free board where even if you aren't in debt, they can help you lower your outgoings.

I am sorry you think we are being intrusive. But knowing things can help others to help you.

RichandJ

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

For me personally...the answer is "some savings" (and that is no-ones business except the individual concerned) BUT the whole point is that:

- when in work and the income is "salary" then the yearly cost of living rise is the same regardless of what time of year the person concerned was taken on

Therefore...if the income is "pension" then it is equally the case that the yearly cost of living rise is due to be the same regardless of what time of year the person concerned retires.

Its not up to me (or anyone else) to be expected to take on a lower cost of living rise than due (even if it is only in Year 1) in order to subsidise the "paying organisation" (Capita in this case).

So...back to basics...and the query is whether Capita is or isn't liable to pay that full cost of living rise due in Year 1 OR can or cant get away with paying less than the Year 1 "cost of living rise" due....(and my guess would be that they cant...if only because we should all be warned if they intend to get up such shenanigans).

Much as I'd like to agree with you concerning a certain organisation, Capita don't make the Rules, they're simply administering them. And pro rata increases for first pension increase are very common among DB schemes, public or private sector.

FatherAbraham

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

when in work and the income is "salary" then the yearly cost of living rise is the same regardless of what time of year the person concerned was taken on

Nonsense. Initial pay rises are pro-rataed, depending on when the employee joined. Or are you saying that it's even cushier in the civil service than we private-sector workers had suspected?

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

Therefore...if the income is "pension" then it is equally the case that the yearly cost of living rise is due to be the same regardless of what time of year the person concerned retires.

Your suggestion sounds most inequitable. Since the COLA (cost-of-living-adjustmant) is applied once per year for all pensioners, rather than individually on the anniversary of starting to be a pensioner, then it should obviously be pro-rataed in the first year. Subsequent COLA will then be correct.

It's entirely unclear why you think you should be given a full initial COLA for less than a year of being a pensioner.

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

Its not up to me (or anyone else) to be expected to take on a lower cost of living rise than due (even if it is only in Year 1) in order to subsidise the "paying organisation" (Capita in this case).

So...back to basics...and the query is whether Capita is or isn't liable to pay that full cost of living rise due in Year 1 OR can or cant get away with paying less than the Year 1 "cost of living rise" due....(and my guess would be that they cant...if only because we should all be warned if they intend to get up such shenanigans).

I'm not sure what's Capita's got to do with it. It's tax-payers who're stumping up for your pension; Capita is just an agent administering the scheme. However, I'm pleased to hear that your generous, safe pension isn't being overpaid to you.

Warmest regards,
FA

moneyistooshorttomention

I see your point RichardJ.

What I don't get is that its always ever been the case when income is called "salary" and derived from "doing a job of work" then the full annual cost of living rise is due even in Year 1 of being "employed" in that "job".

Therefore I literally cant see how it would be possible to hand over a proportion of the Year 1 "cost of living" rise because the job being done was "being retired" and the income was being called "pension".

Is there a gap in the law at present that allows those whose job is "being retired " and whose income is "pension" to be discriminated against in their "first year of employment" (ie first year of being retired) that doesn't apply to those whose "first year of employment" is called "being in a job" and their income is called "salary"?

That is a genuine question and I am wondering if there is such a "gap in the law"?

Also, I wonder if this "gap in the law" gets put right in Year 2 of the job being called "being retired" and the salary being called "pension" and I wouldn't have to worry myself that they will be back for more of my annual cost of living rise due in subsequent years? Is this the case or am I "safe from further attacks"?

moneyistooshorttomention

atush wrote: »

I guess my point was, that savings or part time jobs in retirement can help out when money is tight.



If every penny matters, and they aren't going to pay you what you had hoped, then consider our debt free board where even if you aren't in debt, they can help you lower your outgoings.

I am sorry you think we are being intrusive. But knowing things can help others to help you.

I appreciate your kind thoughts on this.

I have already lowered my outgoings to the maximum amount they possibly could be - no mortgage, no debt, paying the lowest amount possible for service providers to my home, etc in case of the unexpected (in this case - an apparent not giving me my full cost-of-living rise in Year 1 of retirement). I've worked for the Civil Service for so long that I've learnt to be a cynic and rather self-protective in self-defence by now:rotfl:(anyone who thinks we're on a cushy number should try working for them for a while and see just how they treat many of their staff:().

So, I don't think you're being intrusive at all. I'm just wondering if there is an "injustice enshrined within the System" that I hadn't been aware of and, to date, it looks as if there might be...

RichandJ

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

I see your point RichardJ.

What I don't get is that its always ever been the case when income is called "salary" and derived from "doing a job of work" then the full annual cost of living rise is due even in Year 1 of being "employed" in that "job".

Therefore I literally cant see how it would be possible to hand over a proportion of the Year 1 "cost of living" rise because the job being done was "being retired" and the income was being called "pension".

Is there a gap in the law at present that allows those whose job is "being retired " and whose income is "pension" to be discriminated against in their "first year of employment" (ie first year of being retired) that doesn't apply to those whose "first year of employment" is called "being in a job" and their income is called "salary"?

That is a genuine question and I am wondering if there is such a "gap in the law"?

Also, I wonder if this "gap in the law" gets put right in Year 2 of the job being called "being retired" and the salary being called "pension" and I wouldn't have to worry myself that they will be back for more of my annual cost of living rise due in subsequent years? Is this the case or am I "safe from further attacks"?

Afraid we're parting company here. I haven't had a cost of living increase in years, just the odd market related adjustment or performance related rise.

You're banging your head against the brick wall if you think you can get any kind of review of the increase rules for the PCSPS, although your last point I can set your mind at rest on*, future April increases will be given in full.

* as far as a non-PCSPS administrator can & there is always future political risk and potential GMP issues.