Actuarial Reductions - LGPS Advice

xylophone

When you started the job, what were you told about how and when your pension would be paid? Were you give a scheme booklet?

jamesd

Rpc, not the same as a lorry driver who lost their license, unless the loss was solely due to reaching a specific age, without any personal fitness to drive/fly assessment. No suggestion here that the pilots are getting disqualified due to any negative conduct on their part at all. It's purely age-related and known at the time of hiring when the normal retirement age would have to be.

Police force upper management seems like a better initial place than an MP, since it's at upper management level that the force will need to decide how it's going to handle this in the future. But ultimately it would be MP time since it's clearly unfair to be hiring people with a clearly set out mandatory retirement age then not using that as their normal retirement age.

hyubh

jamesd wrote: »

But ultimately it would be MP time since it's clearly unfair to be hiring people with a clearly set out mandatory retirement age then not using that as their normal retirement age.

Although in being employed by the police authority/PCC they do get the benefit of LGPS membership in the first place... The 'unfairness' to me would be if the employer had been expecting to make good the gap and are now trying to wriggle their way out of it, which is possibly the case here. Put another way - if I come to be offered a job in the future that was permanent and involve LGPS or similar membership, yet end short of the scheme's NPA, the pull of LGPS membership would be much bigger for me than the push of not being able in principle to leave the job and immediately draw the pension without any reductions.

jamesd

I agree that LGPS is good. I wouldn't necessarily want normal LGPS terms to be used for the pension at the CAA-mandated effective normal retirement age. I might even go with, at the time of hire, specifying NRA to be 60 with actuarial reduction from LGPS normal level, so it's known and agreed at the outset.

Deneb

My advice would be to join Unison pronto and get your force reps involved. Ours have been very proactive and have a good track record of negotiating sympathetic resolutions for members under threat of job losses or redeployment in the ongoing cuts and reviews.
I say this having not been particularly pro-union for much of my working life.

sleepless_saver

Deneb wrote: »

My advice would be to join Unison pronto and get your force reps involved. Ours have been very proactive and have a good track record of negotiating sympathetic resolutions for members under threat of job losses or redeployment in the ongoing cuts and reviews.
I say this having not been particularly pro-union for much of my working life.

Surely it's too late to join a union to seek help once the problem has arisen.

atush

Not necessarily.


An any case, unless your contract of emplpyment covered this situation when you signed it, then it should in all likelyhood be illegal to force you tor retire, earlier than the NRA unless you had agreed this in advance.


I feel this was something overlooked when you signed up, as they didn't know it would be a problem as prehaps RA for the CAA and LGPS were different then (do check).

I do feel you may have recourse in law. I would approach a solicitor with a view to a class action as this will affect many more than you, and might not then cost you anything as they tend to take these on if your claim is reasonable and recover the costs from any judgment. Which although costs you part of settlement, it is one you would not have gotten w/o intervention.

woolly_wombat

EC_Driver wrote: »

We have been informed by our employer, XXXX Police that on reaching our respective 60th birthdays our employment will be terminated by means of "voluntary retirement" and should we wish to take our pensions early, i.e. at 60 years old as opposed to 65 years old then these will be subject to an actuarial reduction of 25% and any lump sum reduced by 14%. Is this correct?

I think your employer has realised that they have a problem, which they are erroneously trying to circumvent by trying to con you out of your rights.

The current LGPS early retirement rules, as outlined in the link provided by xylophone, are very clear:
http://www.lgps.org.uk/lge/core/page.do?pageId=102180
"If your employer makes you redundant or retires you in the interests of business efficiency and you are aged 55 or over, your benefits are payable immediately without reduction."

As I'm sure you are aware, from 2014 the LGPS is changing and the normal retirement age will increase in line with the state retirement age. However it looks as if the rules on early retirement will be staying the same:
http://www.lgps.org.uk/lge/aio/17365549
"When can I access my LGPS 2014 pension if I’m made redundant?
Redundancy pensions from the LGPS 2014 will be payable to members aged between 55 and their Normal Pension Age without reduction for early payment."

It is extremely regrettable that you are not members of a union, so I guess the services of a solicitor with expertise in this area will have to be sought.

WW

mgdavid

woolly_wombat wrote: »

I think your employer has realised that they have a problem, which they are erroneously trying to circumvent by trying to con you out of your rights.........

I agree. In your position I would be joining union or professional association today, and seeking a specialist law firm. I'd also post the issue on the Rotorheads section of Pprune, there are some extremely knowledgable and helpful people on there.
http://www.pprune.org/

atush

But do come back and give us updates on any resolution.

Good luck.