Section 32 problems gmp and aviva
Options
Comments
-
When I spoke to Mark at Aviva last week he confirmed that as I am pre April 1988 there is no increase in my pension from Aviva from age 65.0
-
When I spoke to Mark at Aviva last week he confirmed that as I am pre April 1988 there is no increase in my pension from Aviva from age 65.
That's Aviva's interpretation and not in the policy you hold I would hazard a guess...
Our dear "friend" Mark at Aviva is the dedicated handler and does what the litigation side tell him to say... No more no less.... Civil and amicable yes, but still a vassal...0 -
According to the Pension Advisory Service 'GMP built up before 6/4/88 is not subject to a statutory requirement to be increased'.0
-
According to the Pension Advisory Service 'GMP built up before 6/4/88 is not subject to a statutory requirement to be increased'.
The scheme has no obligation to increase pre 88 GMP in payment.
The obligation for this rested with the state through a mechanism of interaction with the state pension.
However, where the GMP increased by Fixed Rate (rather than Full Rate) in deferment, (common in S32 and private schemes) it was usually the case that the COD at GMP age (which used to tally with SPA) was much higher than the notional pre 97 ASP so that the pensioner saw no increase on his pre88 GMP, or anything above 3% on his post 88 GMP, for a number of years, if ever.
The New State Pension has no mechanism for the ASP/COD interaction.0 -
The scheme has no obligation to increase pre 88 GMP in payment.
The obligation for this rested with the state through a mechanism of interaction with the state pension.
However, where the GMP increased by Fixed Rate (rather than Full Rate) in deferment, (common in S32 and private schemes) it was usually the case that the COD at GMP age (which used to tally with SPA) was much higher than the notional pre 97 ASP so that the pensioner saw no increase on his pre88 GMP, or anything above 3% on his post 88 GMP, for a number of years, if ever.
The New State Pension has no mechanism for the ASP/COD interaction.
Therefore according to you, the wording in the policy has no meaning whatsoever when "Shall" and "Will" is used to define what is meant. There is nothing in the policy that says that the State is liable for the EPR pre or post '88..... Except Aviva's interpretation, bearing in mind that these were Norwich Union policies before Aviva came along and decided to change the rules. We already know that Aviva have made monumental !!!! ups, left right and center, so it only remains to be seen.
If ya don't try you will never know, and that IS half the problem when it comes to policy holders who don't...
As the POS did with Anthony Harris's determination.... It went back to the fundamental meaning of what is it says and states in the policy, regardless of all the gobbledegook that comes before it or after....0 -
Can anyone explain why us pre 88ers will not get any increase in pension after 65 and everyone else will?.0
-
Therefore according to you,
Not according to me - the system by which GMP was index linked was subject to legislation.
https://www.barnett-waddingham.co.uk/comment-insight/blog/2014/08/18/what-is-a-gmp/
If the S32 was protecting the GMP from the ceding scheme, (which was itself subject to the relevant legislation), then presumably the legislation applies?0 -
Djuna Thurley writes the Briefing papers for the House of Commons
From Briefing Paper Number 04956, 18 June 2015
GMP increases
1.3 Interaction with the State Pension
Defined Benefit occupational schemes are required to annually increase
GMP rights accrued between 6 April 1988 and 5 April 1997 in line with
prices, capped at three per cent.7
In addition, the amount of an individual’s GMP entitlement is deducted
from the additional State Pension they would have accrued had they
remained contracted-in and the net amount is paid.8 This is calculation
is done annually.
The effect of these arrangements is that, although schemes are not
required to provide increases on the GMP on rights accrued between
1978 and 1988 (or in excess of 3% on rights accrued between 1988
and 1997), the additional State Pension built up during that period is
subject to increases. When the contracted-out deduction is subtracted
from the additional state pension, the remaining additional state
pension includes an increase linked to prices. In this way, an amount
broadly equivalent to the GMP, but which is in fact additional state
pension, is subject to an increase.0 -
Not according to me - the system by which GMP was index linked was subject to legislation.
https://www.barnett-waddingham.co.uk/comment-insight/blog/2014/08/18/what-is-a-gmp/
If the S32 was protecting the GMP from the ceding scheme, (which was itself subject to the relevant legislation), then presumably the legislation applies?
Does it? I don't know, but you seem to be quite knowledgeable about it all, so maybe you can explain in more detail how it does? Here's how the latest so called legislation affects pre '88 policy holders... As I explained before, but no one thinks this is wrong in any way? If they do then it should be reason to complain and get it sorted out, which I am going to do, or at least try to....
Aviva are fully aware that "contracted out" pension from SERPS allowing reduced NI contributions, which at the time were an additional incentive to take up these occupational pensions. This now in effect means a reduced New State Pension (NSP). The "contracted out" old State Pension or SERPS was meant to be more than compensated and safeguarded for by the "contracted out" occupational pension provision, and also these NU Section 32 Buyout Policies.
The NSP legislation has now allowed it seems, for Aviva to manipulate, interpret and penalise NU S32 holders yet again, whose SPA GMP's come into effect before or after 6th April 2016. They are in effect taking two "hits". The reduced NSP, "contracted out" scenario from the DWP, plus the Aviva "hit" being the non payment of the EPR from SPA as stated in the original NU S32 policies. Aviva's interpretation* of HM Government or DWP legislature contradicts and acts outside the NU S32 First and Second Policy Schedules and the conditions stated therein.
*Ref: https://www.aviva-for-advisers.co.uk/adviser/site/public/tech-centre/tech-article-detail/section-32-arrangements-gmps-and-transferring
Say a persons NSP forecast at SPA is £6200 per annum, instead of the full NSP of £8093.38. It is a stark and sizeable shortfall of £1893.382 per annum, even though that person has say 37 years to qualify for the NSP, but was contracted out for say 14 years, it would turn out that it wouldn't be much more than the old state pension that these contracted out pensions were supposed to take up the shortfall that I point out...... This now means that any annual pensions aggregate will be eroded year on year by inflation, as the NSP will only increase by 2.5% which does not make up the shortfall, which the policy, had it been paid out in full including any EPR would have provided and made up for. This is made far worse by Aviva's interpretations of the policy and acting outside of.... The NU S32 pension policy EPR's at 5% or 3% which Aviva now say no to, is contractually, ethically and morally wrong...... Not only that it is also discriminatory....
I thinks it has been badly overlooked and needs to be brought to light.... Amen
:cool::)0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.7K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.9K Spending & Discounts
- 235.8K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.3K Life & Family
- 248.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards