Opt out of 2015 Police pension

sadcop2

kidmugsy wrote: »

If you no longer enjoy the job, and are unhappy with the T&Cs - including the pensions - then you'll be right to leave. If enough leave, the government of the day will need to decide how to incentivise attraction and retention. So be it.

I enjoy the vast majority of the job, it's unique, special, I've helped people in ways i never could have in other jobs and wearing the uniform makes me proud. But it is, at the end of the day a job, I think you are right things will probably go full circle but it is a SadCop situation.

hyubh

sadcop2 wrote: »

Then when I joined the Police I was given the option to consolidate everything I had into the the 2006 New Police Pension Scheme

So, you aren't losing double accrual with the CARE scheme (years 20 to 30 in the 1987 scheme count double).

I think my pensions teams said the fund was worth about £40k.

There is no 'fund'.

I won't bore you with the details

Given the mini-essay even without them that's possibly just as well

Indeed the government reforms have it seems actively placed policies that seem designed to prevent someone achieving a full pension

Just forget about the concept of a 'full pension' - it has no meaning in DC land, and in DB world is just another term for 'maximum accrual'. In your case the NPPS does have an accrual limit (35 years) but the new CARE scheme will likely not.

I am mindful of the relative benefits of the new career average scheme

Good.

but I really think there is no future in policing for me and leaving will ultimately be a certainty.

Why does the possibility of leaving in three years justify opting out now?

I realise my employer will be contributing around 14.3% and this is great but it's still much lower than what I thought I was going to get as an employer contribution (24.2% currently I believe).

This is not equivalent to a private sector employer paying 14.3% (or whatever) into a DC scheme (although, just for reference: mine contributes 5%). In fact, it's not even equivalent to a private sector employer paying 14.3% into a DB scheme... or for that matter, a police force contributing x% into a public sector, but funded DB scheme (every police force by law enrols its support staff into its local LGPS fund, and for this will typically have a rate rather higher than 14.3% despite the LGPS being a slightly less generous scheme).

I naively justified joining and taking a large pay drop thinking that my employer would be investing in my pension to such a degree.

Your employer isn't investing anything - your benefits will be paid for out of general taxation.

Bennifred

I notice above that you are not married. Have you named your partner on your Death in Service and also Pension paperwork? Because if not, she really would be in financial trouble if you die before she does.

sadcop2

Bennifred wrote: »

I notice above that you are not married. Have you named your partner on your Death in Service and also Pension paperwork? Because if not, she really would be in financial trouble if you die before she does.

She is yes but thatnks for pointing that out as I'm sure many cops forget to do it.

sadcop2

So, you aren't losing double accrual with the CARE scheme (years 20 to 30 in the 1987 scheme count double).

Yes I think the NPPS is flat rate, final salary 1/70th, the 87 was better, the 2006 NPPS is perhaps more similar to the CARE scheme.

There is no 'fund'.

Not in the investment sense I guess... I was given a valuation though so I just refer to it as my fund.

Given the mini-essay even without them that's possibly just as well

You could always look up Winsor 1 and Winsor 2 if you can be bothered, it makes for a rivetting read - even more so than my mini essay

Why does the possibility of leaving in three years justify opting out now?

That's the point, does it.... doesn't it.... I don't know, I guess I want to keep my options open as much as possible.

This is not equivalent to a private sector employer paying 14.3% (or whatever) into a DC scheme (although, just for reference: mine contributes 5%). In fact, it's not even equivalent to a private sector employer paying 14.3% into a DB scheme... or for that matter, a police force contributing x% into a public sector, but funded DB scheme (every police force by law enrols its support staff into its local LGPS fund, and for this will typically have a rate rather higher than 14.3% despite the LGPS being a slightly less generous scheme).

Not really sure I understand what you mean here.... Police CARE isn't LGPS as such, as we are not staff our pay and conditions, pension rights etc. are written in statute

Your employer isn't investing anything - your benefits will be paid for out of general taxation.

Again just my use of the word, to describe how when they employed me that were doing considerably more than just paying me a salary and that made the job more attractive at the time.

hyubh

sadcop2 wrote: »

Not really sure I understand what you mean here....

You seemed to be claiming 14.3% (if that's what it is) was 'low', when it is not; moreover, 14.3% in an unfunded public sector DB scheme is not the same as 14.3% elsewhere, so if your comparing, you need to bump it up. (And if you're looking for a job elsewhere, comparing is a sensible thing to do...)

Police CARE isn't LGPS as such, as we are not staff our pay and conditions, pension rights etc. are written in statute

The LGPS is a statutory scheme as well.

To be honest, i find it unclear why you seem to see such a gulf between the 2006 and 2015 schemes (which isn't to say there's an argument for that view). There was a poster a while back who is currently in the 1987 scheme but young enough not to fall under the transitional protections; his annoyance was easily understandable as loss of double accrual is a big thing. You don't have that to lose however. Further, you've said that all along you've been expecting to retire from the police in your mid/late 50s off of the back of being a late starter, which doesn't to me sound like a strategy to maximise the value of a final salary scheme (i.e., all along you were giving yourself less time to climb the ranks).

sadcop2

hyubh wrote: »

You seemed to be claiming 14.3% (if that's what it is) was 'low', when it is not; moreover, 14.3% in an unfunded public sector DB scheme is not the same as 14.3% elsewhere, so if your comparing, you need to bump it up. (And if you're looking for a job elsewhere, comparing is a sensible thing to do...)



The LGPS is a statutory scheme as well.

To be honest, i find it unclear why you seem to see such a gulf between the 2006 and 2015 schemes (which isn't to say there's an argument for that view). There was a poster a while back who is currently in the 1987 scheme but young enough not to fall under the transitional protections; his annoyance was easily understandable as loss of double accrual is a big thing. You don't have that to lose however. Further, you've said that all along you've been expecting to retire from the police in your mid/late 50s off of the back of being a late starter, which doesn't to me sound like a strategy to maximise the value of a final salary scheme (i.e., all along you were giving yourself less time to climb the ranks).

My overly simplified comparison of the two and illustration using the the Home Office spreadsheet that was doing the rounds suggests that NPPS and CARE in my case would be roughly similar, except obviously I will be paying in more overall.

That spreadsheet dates back around two years now so I have no idea if it incorporated the drop employer contribution (which I agree at 14.3% is still very good). There are other aspects to the changes to terms and conditions that need to be factored in though, Compulsory Severance for an example (not to be confused with redundancy) and also changes to regional pay, something called X-Factor (that I don't really understand) but could result in officers being civilianised. The "assault" on police pensions has come on many fronts and it makes the decision making process now all the more difficult.

Realistically I can't see myself sticking it out for more than a couple of years (that period is just gut instinct... it's not based around any financial imperative). So I suppose it's on that basis that I'm needing to make a decision on whether to just stay as I am because most people say that is the best thing to do.

hyubh

sadcop2 wrote: »

using the the Home Office spreadsheet that was doing the rounds suggests that NPPS and CARE in my case would be roughly similar

In which case I doubt pensions should really be much of a push factor if you're deciding to quit, and instead you should be weighing up the importance of the other, non-pensions things you've mentioned.

That spreadsheet dates back around two years now so I have no idea if it incorporated the drop employer contribution

Really, get it out of your head - the employer rate is a notional figure.

The "assault" on police pensions has come on many fronts

Hyperbole, surely, if you accept 'NPPS and CARE in my case would be roughly similar'...?

Realistically I can't see myself sticking it out for more than a couple of years (that period is just gut instinct... it's not based around any financial imperative). So I suppose it's on that basis that I'm needing to make a decision on whether to just stay as I am because most people say that is the best thing to do.

By the sounds of it you should stay in the pension scheme but actively look for another job given your unhappiness with non-pensions aspects.

sadcop2

In which case I doubt pensions should really be much of a push factor if you're deciding to quit, and instead you should be weighing up the importance of the other, non-pensions things you've mentioned.

Really, get it out of your head - the employer rate is a notional figure.

No it certainly is a factor but one of the biggest out of a few.

Hyperbole, surely, if you accept 'NPPS and CARE in my case would be roughly similar'...?

Not really, the changes to T&C's invariably create less favourable terms and these can and likely will impact on pensions assuming you don't met the moving goal post criteria, for example mandatory fitness tests linked to pay, changes to regional pay and the one that has most cops running scared is Compulsory Severance.

By the sounds of it you should stay in the pension scheme but actively look for another job given your unhappiness with non-pensions aspects.

Yep that's pretty much the sum of it, it's a shame though it's come to this, I'm fairly confident you can replicate my feelings many many times across the country.

I'm none the wiser but I appreciate your replies and advice.

greenglide

Is it not quite simple?

Stay in the pension scheme for as long as you are in the police. If it is a CARE arrangement in the future this would not negatively impact you if you stay at the same level and salaries do not rise above inflation.

Have a look round for whatever else is available. Do you have marketable skills, how much would the market pay? Remember that private sector employment would tend to offer a much less generous pension arrangements so you would need to contribute much, much more.

Would a change of job give you equivalent or better remuneration? If not it could be a case of frying and fire!

In the past the majority of "follow on" jobs for ex-police tended to assume that they were already in receipt of the police pension (although that was based on cases many years ago!).