New State Pension Guide

falcon4us

xylophone said:

Have a look at  the chart on Page 6 here
Royal London State Pension Guide 2018  (Sorry had to remove link - not enough posts)

Your "starting amount" was based on the old system.
You had 30 qualifying years.
Therefore you could only improve your position by purchasing post 6/4/2016 years up to your SPA.

This is incorrect...

I am just posting what I was told by Futures Group who stand by their figure of £149.84 and I was suggesting it was not a 'keying error' as originally thought.

This is what I believe the Futures Group are eluding to - See and read Note 4 page 12 of the guide you quoted:

4 Just to add to the complexity, whether your starting amount is based on the old rules or the new rules could ‘flip’ following the payment of voluntary contributions. For example, if you pay a pre-2016 year which makes no difference to your old rules pension (because you already have 30 qualifying years) it could make a difference to your new rules pension (because you can have 35 qualifying years). In some cases this means your starting amount would now be based on the new rules. The ‘Check your State Pension’ website will ultimately guide people through these complexities.

Btw 'Check your State Pension' has also always said £149.84.

As I said previously, 5 years pre 2016 payments may "trigger" a re-calculation which would make the New Rules calculation higher...

(35/35 x  £155.65) - £30.66 = £124.99. Adding the indexation of 2.5%, 3% and 2.6% gives the new 2019 figure of £135.39

Add the 3 post 2016 years I've paid (£14.45 + £135.39 = £149.84)

As I've said academic in my case due to the poor cost/reward ratio of paying pre 2016 years. 

However there are very good reasons for allowing this and the extended payment deadlines...

molerat

A very interesting and I suspect a very rare case.  There have been a few other cases on here where the starting amount has flipped but not many.

jem16

falcon4us said:

xylophone said:

Have a look at  the chart on Page 6 here
Royal London State Pension Guide 2018  (Sorry had to remove link - not enough posts)

Your "starting amount" was based on the old system.
You had 30 qualifying years.
Therefore you could only improve your position by purchasing post 6/4/2016 years up to your SPA.

This is incorrect...

I am just posting what I was told by Futures Group who stand by their figure of £149.84 and I was suggesting it was not a 'keying error' as originally thought.

This is what I believe the Futures Group are eluding to - See and read Note 4 page 12 of the guide you quoted:

4 Just to add to the complexity, whether your starting amount is based on the old rules or the new rules could ‘flip’ following the payment of voluntary contributions. For example, if you pay a pre-2016 year which makes no difference to your old rules pension (because you already have 30 qualifying years) it could make a difference to your new rules pension (because you can have 35 qualifying years). In some cases this means your starting amount would now be based on the new rules. The ‘Check your State Pension’ website will ultimately guide people through these complexities.

Btw 'Check your State Pension' has also always said £149.84.

As I said previously, 5 years pre 2016 payments may "trigger" a re-calculation which would make the New Rules calculation higher...

(35/35 x  £155.65) - £30.66 = £124.99. Adding the indexation of 2.5%, 3% and 2.6% gives the new 2019 figure of £135.39

Add the 3 post 2016 years I've paid (£14.45 + £135.39 = £149.84)

As I've said academic in my case due to the poor cost/reward ratio of paying pre 2016 years. 

However there are very good reasons for allowing this and the extended payment deadlines...

Thanks for posting this as it does confirm what I thought to a certain extent. Basically only if someone has at least 35 years and a lower amount than the full nSP can we be sure that it’s only post 2016 years which will improve your pension. 

Anything from 30 to 34 years is a grey area where only the Future Pension Centre can give the true picture. 

xylophone

This is incorrect...

Thank you for this - I have referred your post to another poster with fewer than 35 years.

barnstar2077

xylophone said:

did almost 35 years with BT, plus signed on for Job-seekers Allowance 6 months.

The other couple of years will likely have come from  youth credits.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5470065/mysteriously-full-ni-years

That is interesting, I was in the Youth Training Scheme (Also known as Young, Thick, and Stupid!) when I left school.  This explains why I still have full years for that period.  

Black_Cat2

barnstar2077 said:

That is interesting, I was in the Youth Training Scheme (Also known as Young, Thick, and Stupid!) when I left school.  This explains why I still have full years for that period.  

Lol @ Young, thick and stupid 

NottinghamKnight

barnstar2077 said:

xylophone said:

did almost 35 years with BT, plus signed on for Job-seekers Allowance 6 months.

The other couple of years will likely have come from  youth credits.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5470065/mysteriously-full-ni-years

That is interesting, I was in the Youth Training Scheme (Also known as Young, Thick, and Stupid!) when I left school.  This explains why I still have full years for that period.  

You actually got credits for being at school doing A levels up to the age of 18, but not at university unless credited sufficiently through employment or benefits (I remember signing on during university holidays, happy days).

ChrisEd

NottinghamKnight said:

barnstar2077 said:

xylophone said:

did almost 35 years with BT, plus signed on for Job-seekers Allowance 6 months.

The other couple of years will likely have come from  youth credits.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5470065/mysteriously-full-ni-years

That is interesting, I was in the Youth Training Scheme (Also known as Young, Thick, and Stupid!) when I left school.  This explains why I still have full years for that period.  

You actually got credits for being at school doing A levels up to the age of 18, but not at university unless credited sufficiently through employment or benefits (I remember signing on during university holidays, happy days).

I was at University in the late 70's and at the time was always able to get at job in my hoildays, paid NI but it counts for nothing as they were not complete years - maybe 16 weeks. Gov should sum up any partial years to see if you were entitled to get another year.

barnstar2077

ChrisEd said:

NottinghamKnight said:

barnstar2077 said:

xylophone said:

did almost 35 years with BT, plus signed on for Job-seekers Allowance 6 months.

The other couple of years will likely have come from  youth credits.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5470065/mysteriously-full-ni-years

That is interesting, I was in the Youth Training Scheme (Also known as Young, Thick, and Stupid!) when I left school.  This explains why I still have full years for that period.  

You actually got credits for being at school doing A levels up to the age of 18, but not at university unless credited sufficiently through employment or benefits (I remember signing on during university holidays, happy days).

I was at University in the late 70's and at the time was always able to get at job in my hoildays, paid NI but it counts for nothing as they were not complete years - maybe 16 weeks. Gov should sum up any partial years to see if you were entitled to get another year.

I agree, I have a year with 27 weeks and it counts for nothing.  If they added up all of the weeks then surely it would encourage people to work.

falcon4us

molerat said:

A very interesting and I suspect a very rare case.  There have been a few other cases on here where the starting amount has flipped but not many.

Firstly thanks everyone for contributing, and I hope my experience helps others in a similar boat.

It's difficult to know without objective DWP data how often this occurs but I would agree it's unusual and this was borne out by my experience dealing with DWP.

The reason I say that is correspondence from  2 out of the 3 pension officers I dealt with showed that they seemed stumped by how to get from my original pension of £131.40 to £149.84 which they said I would get after paying 3 post 2016 years.

The initial figures were 'fudged' as this jump was never attainable as shown by molerat and xylophone's calculations.
It then took a 3rd pension officer who finally changed the payment to the correct £145.85.  

Apart from my annoyance at not getting what I was promised I never got an explanation of the significance of the £149.84 figure.

That is, till I spoke to Futures Group and even then the information was sketchy apart from the insistence they were right and the advice to review my NI records pre-2016. 

I also gather from them that the important 2016 'old versus new' calculations should always be revisited by DWP to give the best outcome if pre-2016 voluntary payments are made.

So these are very useful people to speak to if discrepancies occur as maybe communication between these departments can sometimes fall between the stools.