Overturning a Widow's Pension restriction

Pollycat

Mr_Toad wrote: »

Yes, mine is a Civil Service final salary pension. I joined what was Post Office Telephones in 1973 when they were looking for people to train in computing. They sponsored me through Uni to study micro electronics and computing and paid me to do it. When we were privatised our Civil Service pension and other rights were protected.

Being picky, I'm not sure yours is a Civil Service pension.

The Post Office stopped being part of the Civil Service on 1st October 1969.
I joined in November 1970, when the pension scheme was non-contributory (Section A).
It became contributory on 1st December 1971 (Section .

A lot of the old Civil Service rules and regulations - (including pensions and stuff like half day holiday for Maundy Thursday & an extra day off at Spring Bank for 'the Queen's Birthday) - were retained for many years though.

securityguy

Pollycat wrote: »

Being picky, I'm not sure yours is a Civil Service pension.

The Post Office stopped being part of the Civil Service on 1st October 1969..

`The history of GPO/BT pensions is very complex. The pensions were transferred to BT on privatisation, and any contributions made since then were into the BT DB schemes (SS and NSS? It's a long time since I worked for BT). However, there have been recent court judgements which say that the government is still partially responsible for the deficit:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/350cd4e0-0cdf-11e4-bf1e-00144feabdc0.html

Pollycat

securityguy wrote: »

`The history of GPO/BT pensions is very complex. The pensions were transferred to BT on privatisation, and any contributions made since then were into the BT DB schemes (SS and NSS? It's a long time since I worked for BT). However, there have been recent court judgements which say that the government is still partially responsible for the deficit:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/350cd4e0-0cdf-11e4-bf1e-00144feabdc0.html

But it's not a civil service pension.
I worked in PO pensions at their finance HQ for 15 years & continued working for the same company through the spilt with BT & subsequent PO/BT pension split.

Mr_Toad

Pollycat wrote: »

Being picky, I'm not sure yours is a Civil Service pension.

The Post Office stopped being part of the Civil Service on 1st October 1969.
I joined in November 1970, when the pension scheme was non-contributory (Section A).
It became contributory on 1st December 1971 (Section .

A lot of the old Civil Service rules and regulations - (including pensions and stuff like half day holiday for Maundy Thursday & an extra day off at Spring Bank for 'the Queen's Birthday) - were retained for many years though.

Yes I'm sure that's correct, it became a statutory corporation but still state controlled. I was never that bothered about the details, only that to all intents and purposes it was a Civil Service scheme.

I am indeed section B and very happy too.

One of the reasons I retired early was that the crown guarantee was for 30 years, I think. This was up in 2014 and part of the reason my early retirement was an offer I couldn't refuse another was the possibility of changes to the pension scheme.

And indeed in 2010/2011 things started to be tested in court. During my time there were many post privatisation changes to contracts and conditions for new employees etc. that did not affect those of us with protected rights, the changes were not applied retrospectively.

It was looking like both the Govt. and BT would like to change things and we've all seen what has happened to some schemes so as I was in a position financially to retire I decided that I'd do it rather than risk a pension scheme change so close to the finish.

I believe there was some sort of ruling in 2014 and no doubt things will continue to be tested but now I have my pension while the guarantee is still in place I should be fine no matter what happens to those still not in receipt of their pension.

Pollycat

paddy's_mum wrote: »

I'm putting this query here because it is primarily a 'people' question rather than strictly pensions or high finance.

We have recently discovered that my husband's retirement pensions have clauses hidden in the small print that no widow's provision will be paid if the widow in question is more than 10 years younger than the husband nor if the claimant is not the wife he was married to at the time he retired.

As a middle-aged woman, I married a widower - now 65, I am 12 years younger and could face genuine financial difficulties in the event of his death having only the state pension in my own right.

Is it possible to challenge these restrictions, perhaps because the law on enforceable terms has changed? Has anybody successfully done so and if so, on what grounds?

Is there a specialist professional people go to for advice on this particular narrow question? We can't be the only couple where the wife may be caught out by her husband signing up for terms and conditions prevailing 40 or more years ago and not looked at by him since.

As previously suggested, I would post this on the Pensions board.

It's not a 'people' question.
Whether people think it's right or wrong isn't relelvant.

It's what is in the scheme rules and whether you can challenge those rules that matters.
I'm sure that any suggestion for a specialist professional group that you could consult would be better coming from the good people on the Pensions board who deal with pensions in their daily job.

jackyann

Not relevant to OP, but I am a NHS pensioner, and cannot see any rules governing the age of my spouse. I may be missing it, but am posting so that anyone reading securityguy's post knows to check it out carefully.

The NHS pension scheme does allow for a survivor's pension to be paid to someone with whom the pensioner shares a household, with joint bills etc. They require careful proof, but it is a recognition that some relatives or friends share a close personal & financial relationship.

Primrose

You could of course write formally to the pension scheme trustees pointing out that these conditions are out of date or at least should be reviewed. They are under no obligation to do so but you could try pointing out the inequity of them.

Even if they do agree to revire them it would be a slow process as the teustees peobably meet onky once every few months and would have to take legal advice and possibly consult with members as well. Any changes to a pension scheme's conditions could take up to two years to implement.

Seabee42

Such a change would almost definitely require the consent of the employer as you are increasing benefits and if the change was made retrospectively i.e. to include existing pensioners there would be a cost funding implication. Since such pensions are usually very expensive in the first place the likelihood of someone agreeing to such an increase should be non existent however reasonable you think the change is.

JP08

I guess the purpose of this is to limit the payouts to a sensible timescale. Otherwise you can get some extremely long payouts.
Eg : if the US government hadn't implemented a similar ruling they would have been paying Maudie Hopkins
a Civil War pension right up until 2008 - 143 years after the Civil War ended.