GMP on early retirement

RichandJ

xylophone wrote: »

And all the above having been said, you might be interested to read through this thread (but wind the cold towel round your brow first).:D
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4736856

I reckon cold towels should be general issue for administrators having to contemplate SERPS/occupational scheme interaction.

How non pension industry people like the OP are supposed to understand it is beyond me. Thank you Barbara Castle & sundry politicians & civil servants since.

arsenalboy

xylophone wrote: »

My understanding is as follows, but do check with your Scheme Administrator.

I think that the term "revaluation" is more accurate than "increase" - you already know what your GMP revalued to 65 will be because your Scheme Administrators already know it? (Fixed Rate Revaluation)

This figure will be confirmed to the Scheme when you reach GMP/SPA.

At SPA you will receive a statement from the DWP concerning your SP entitlement, including your COD (see previous post) and also a statement from your Scheme Administrators which will show your pension at that time as pre 88 GMP, post 88 GMP and the excess.

It would seem therefore that provided your Scheme will be paying you a pension at least as great as your revalued GMP at 65, the only relevance to you of your GMP is the way your Scheme Pension and State Pension will increase after you are 65?

If the total scheme pension you are being paid at 65 is not equal to or greater than your revalued GMP at age 65, then your Scheme would have to increase it.

Whilst I acknowledge that the GMP is part of the pension and not in addition, the Scheme has consistently provided figures showing GMP and the Scheme as two separate streams and added them together and given the total as the pension payable.
I am struggling to accept that if taking an early pension means foregoing a GMP indexation for one or two years it doesn't matter as long as the total pension exceeds the GMP requirement?
This would mean taking part of the pension from the scheme to jack up the GMP element and begs the question why would they have consistently shown these indexed up separately. They will have reduced the projections on the scheme element?