Scheme with normal retirement age of 60 refusing to pay deferred pension until 65

edited 30 November -1 at 1:00AM in Pensions, Annuities & Retirement Planning
43 replies 5.6K views
1235»

Replies

  • Yes Snowman, I understand the argument but that is the worst-case scenario and it is my belief that a banking pension would have had better rights in 1973. Am I being naive...possibly.... but i want to see the clause that denies me the right before I give up.
  • SnowManSnowMan Forumite
    3.3K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭
    Cyberman60 wrote: »
    Yes Snowman, I understand the argument but that is the worst-case scenario and it is my belief that a banking pension would have had better rights in 1973. Am I being naive...possibly.... but i want to see the clause that denies me the right before I give up.

    The scheme could have given you additional rights above that required by the preservation requirements of the 1973 Social Security Act (i.e. right to a 'preserved' deferred pension subject to criteria) which applied for leavers after 6th April 1975.

    I suspect that the rules didn't extend past the statutory requirement (age 26 and 5 years service in your case) but it is reasonable to ask to see the rules to confirm that. There is likely to be a term in the rules that states the conditions for getting a preserved deferred pension and that will state you must be above age 26 and have 5 years service (for your leaving date).

    Unfortunately early leavers have historically been treated very badly treated under final salary schemes.

    The preservation and subsequent anti-franking rules gradually tackled this over the years, but that didn't right the past injustices. Employers were typically more concerned with keeping current employees happy than being fair to past employees.
    I came, I saw, I melted
  • PensionTechPensionTech Forumite
    711 Posts
    The statutory requirements at the time would not have granted you preservation. The TD&R wouldn't have had to contain any specific provision saying that you weren't entitled to a preserved benefit - more likely it would have just referred to the relevant legislation, which would have the same effect. Another way of thinking about it is that the default position would have been to disallow preservation for someone under 26 - so in order for you to be allowed preservation, it would have to be specifically written in.

    It does sound like you don't have any preserved benefits. You can try to get hold of the TD&R from 1979 and check whether there was a special allowance for members under 26 to be granted preservation even though the scheme didn't have to do it - but it's really on you to prove that you were entitled, rather than on them to prove that you weren't. Your hunch that the provisions of the scheme should have been generally more generous than statutory requirements isn't, I'm afraid, very much to go on.
    I am a Technical Analyst at a third-party pension administration company. My job is to interpret rules and legislation and provide technical guidance, but I am not a lawyer or a qualified advisor of any kind and anything I say on these boards is my opinion only.
This discussion has been closed.
Latest News and Guides

Best student bank accounts 2021/22

Incl. free 0% overdrafts and railcards

MSE Guide

Next 50% off sale rumour

Here's what we've found...

MSE Deals