Company Pension changes

xylophone

Custom and practice is one thing - what it says in the (usually pared down for ease) scheme booklet is another thing but the binding wording is contained in the Scheme Rules.

The rules permit the employer to withhold consent or to give consent but apply an actuarial reduction?

It was unwise of employees to base their retirement plans on a possibility, even if a strong one?

Might saving into a private pension for five years help to fund early retirement with actuarial reduction?

xylophone

Might saving into a private pension for five years help to fund early retirement with actuarial reduction?

Ah, looking at your previous post

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/67824930#Comment_67824930 - been there, done that?;)

dunstonh

The point of my initial question was if what is written in the rule book has more or less legal standing that the actual policy which has been applied for almost 50 years?

The scheme rules exist to cater for periods where they may have to impose reductions. In the case of British Steel, they almost certainly used the pension scheme to help reduce the size of the workforce. So,it served a purpose for the employer. However, when it doesnt serve a purpose, then the employer can say no. What happened in the past does not matter one bit. What the scheme rules actually say is what matters.

I think that I (and others of course) have been led to believe that there is a reasonable expectation that what has been applied in the past should continue into the future.

Ok, you go to court on that basis and the scheme presents the judge with the scheme booklet rules that state that it is subject to discretion and that reductions are viewed on a case by case basis. What can you provide the judge that backs up your view?

When you state that the previous policy was not consistent & was applied on a case by case basis, this is not true. The application was entirely consistent in that no-one was ever refused early retirement & therefore no loss of benefit was ever incurred.

it is true. That is what the rules stated. The fact that each case ended up with the same outcome does not mean the process was any different. However, all them went through the same case by case process.

Buy a house in a flood plain and you may live there for 50 years without flood. You could then sell it saying its never flooded. However, the next person to live there could have a flood that year. "never" in a period is not the same as something never ever going to happen.

Many people have made lifetime decisions affecting their whole future based on this.

Life is full of risks. Those people took a risk and it looks like that risk is not paying off.

At the end of the day, you can make a case to the administrators and see if they will refer your case to the trustees. The rules say they look at them on a case by case basis (currently). So, you never know.