Actuarial Reductions - LGPS Advice

atush

AFAIK, they are required to give you a scheme booklet when you signed up.

If they didn't, your lawyer (if you hire one) could argue they were aware of the RA discrepancy and were attempting to hide this from you. They could counter they were ignorant of it as well, but both would be in your favor during any negotiations.

As far as I can see, it would seem unfair if they required you to retire early with a reduced pension, based solely on your age. As the Police themselves have in the past, recognized that their personel should not have to work as long in the job as other workers. The fact that you are still required to give up flying at 60, means you should be protected.

It will be interesting to see what happens in this case, have you contacted your MP yet?

hyubh

atush wrote: »

If they didn't, your lawyer (if you hire one) could argue they were aware of the RA discrepancy and were attempting to hide this from you.

Given what has been reported, it would only have been a potential discrepancy when the OP joined, and dependent on the OP's age at the time.

hyubh

EC_Driver wrote: »

hyubh, you're correct. Exactly as it was for us.

How many years membership in the LGPS do you actually have? Given your age, if you meet the '85 year rule', benefits pertaining to membership prior to April 2008 wouldn't be reduced/subject to a strain charge on redundancy anyway. The following is from Wiltshire, but the rules are the same whatever the fund:

http://www.wiltshirepensionfund.org.uk/about-the-scheme/rule-of-85.htm

I pose the question because the documentation you referred to talked of the LGSS - while it may have just used old terminology, the name changed around a couple of decades ago.

atush

hyubh wrote: »

Given what has been reported, it would only have been a potential discrepancy when the OP joined, and dependent on the OP's age at the time.

i am talking about the discrepancy between being told they are no longer allowed to be Pilots at 60, and the RA of LGPS, 65. This 5 year discrepancy has to be illegal under employment law somewhere, unless it is spelled out in the contract.

hyubh

atush wrote: »

i am talking about the discrepancy between being told they are no longer allowed to be Pilots at 60, and the RA of LGPS, 65

I know what you are talking about - I'm saying when the OP joined,
it is possible the expected NPA in the LGPS for a person like himself was 60. Read my previous posts - historically, unreduced benefits at 60 were possible if you had enough service. As such, if he joined aged 35 or earlier, then there wouldn't have been a conflict at the outset, only once the 25 and then 85 year rules were phased out sometime afterwards.

EC_Driver

hyubh wrote: »

How many years membership in the LGPS do you actually have? Given your age, if you meet the '85 year rule', benefits pertaining to membership prior to April 2008 wouldn't be reduced/subject to a strain charge on redundancy anyway. The following is from Wiltshire, but the rules are the same whatever the fund:

I pose the question because the documentation you referred to talked of the LGSS - while it may have just used old terminology, the name changed around a couple of decades ago.

I/We have been members for 12 -15 years but unfortunately, we all just miss out on the 85 year rule.

I quoted the old terminology of LGSS straight from my contract dated 2001.

I do intend contacting my MP but first I am awaiting a reply to my letter of complaint to the HR Manager. If there is no change to their stance on this then that will be my next step.

A pension scheme booklet was provided at the end of the first year of LGPS membership.

hyubh

EC_Driver wrote: »

I/We have been members for 12 -15 years but unfortunately, we all just miss out on the 85 year rule.

From a scheme POV I would have thought you just come under it, albeit only with respect to knocking a year or two off your NPA, and for pre-2008 service only (*). That said, this does still establish that your normal pension/retirement age in the LGPS was never even potentially 60.

(*) You've previously said you are nearly 55, so assuming the low bound of 12 years to date:

Hypothetical years membership at 64 = 12 + 9 = 21
Age + hypothetical membership at 64 = 64 + 21 = 85

Of course, this is nothing more than hypothetical if you don't still have a job at 64!

EC_Driver

hyubh wrote: »

From a scheme POV I would have thought you just come under it, albeit only with respect to knocking a year or two off your NPA, and for pre-2008 service only (*). That said, this does still establish that your normal pension/retirement age in the LGPS was never even potentially 60.

(*) You've previously said you are nearly 55, so assuming the low bound of 12 years to date:

Hypothetical years membership at 64 = 12 + 9 = 21
Age + hypothetical membership at 64 = 64 + 21 = 85

Of course, this is nothing more than hypothetical if you don't still have a job at 64!

Thanks hyubh,

I hadn't thought of it that way.

bilbo51

There's something called a Protected Member in the LGPS.

Lots of conditions but if the rule of 85 might apply, there is a chance of no actuarial reduction. This could be worth a read: http://www.lgps.org.uk/lge/core/page.do?pageId=100801