Aviva/Norwich Union Section 32 Buyout policy holders?

towag

@HowardRob..... "In addition to the back payment, I am also in contact with Aviva regarding the clear statement in an update Norwich Union sent to me in Feb 1997 stating that "the GMP will increase by 3% each year starting 1 March 2010". Aviva now inform me that due to insufficient funds, this increase will not be paid"

That is what they told me and I'm challenging it through the Pension Ombudsman.... Mine was EPR of 5%... There is nothing in the policy wording and subsequent annual statements that says that it will not be paid... In fact it states that it will and shall be paid at commencement of retirement... Aviva have used the same excuse as for not paying out at 60 which is the "insufficient funds" scenario already commented upon in earlier posts... if you just accept it, then that is exactly what you will get... No increases after age 65... If you were contracted out that means that the state pension will not make up for it either, so you will lose twice!! You have nothing to lose in challenging it...
Good luck and best wishes with your pension....:beer:

chrisuk1

My letter from Aviva states that my annual income of £8273 from State Pension Age will increase by 3% on £2205 and "none" on £6068. No explanation why!!

WBCPB

chrisuk1 wrote: »

My letter from Aviva states that my annual income of £8273 from State Pension Age will increase by 3% on £2205 and "none" on £6068. No explanation why!!

Maybe check your pre 1988 GMP and post 1988 GMP?

Regards

towag

chrisuk1 wrote: »

My letter from Aviva states that my annual income of £8273 from State Pension Age will increase by 3% on £2205 and "none" on £6068. No explanation why!!

Thats because Aviva are fobbing everyone of with the same excuse of pre 1988 and post 1988 "legislation" ..... http://www.aviva-for-advisers.co.uk/adviser/site/public/tech-centre/tech-article-detail/section-32-arrangements-gmps-and-transferring .....that they do not have to pay it and that the government is responsible for paying that "EPR" (Escalation Percentage Rate) through your old state pension and the new state pension... What they didnt factor in was that if you were "contracted out" you would also receive a reduced state pension, because you paid less NI contributions towards your state pension which was to encourage people into paying into these type of DB pensions, or your section 32 from Norwich Union, if you left a DB company or government pension scheme... So in effect not only will you get NO EPR from Aviva, you will also get a reduced state pension which the Aviva or section 32 pension EPR was supposed to make up for.... Crafty and unacceptable con and fob off by Aviva or any other company that doesn't want to pay this very important part of these section 32 pensions through saying "insufficient funds" when the fund is worth 39 billion quid https://www.trustnet.com/Factsheets/Factsheet.aspx?fundCode=NQF50&univ=P...
Not only that, the CEO of Aviva recently had a pay deal...http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-3514805/IN-MONEY-Aviva-chief-executive-Mark-Wilson-handed-3-1m-pay-rise.html?login#readerCommentsCommand-message-field
So Aviva can do this, yet renege on your pension and everyone else's, which just goes to show what conniving rip off merchants this company really is... Stating "insufficient funds" is doing nothing other than just fobbing you off with the same old lame excuse as to WHY they did not pay all these section 32 holders from their 60th birthdays when they were meant to receive it!!!! THAT is EXACTLY what they are doing to get out of paying the EPR of 3% or 5% depending on when you took your policy out...
The ruling and determination by the PO and Anthony Harris's Persistence is WHY you are getting your pension paid in full (minus the EPR)...
I repeat... NOTHING is stated in my policy or any subsequent documentation recieved from Aviva, about my section 32 policy does it state that Aviva is or are exempt from paying the EPR... In fact the wording says that it SHALL and WILL be paid on commencement of my pension coming into force at maturity... I suggest you read your policy and re-read it to see if you can find anything that even suggests that... If its anything like mine, then you will not find it... THAT is WHY I am challenging it by way of complaint to the Pension Ombudsman...

xylophone

With regard to GMP, persons in a contracted out company pension scheme are in exactly the same position in regard to pre 88 and post 88 GMP.

Example http://s05.static-shell.com/content/dam/shell-new/local/business/pensions/downloads/pdf/guaranteed-minimum-pension-factsheet.pdf

The scheme is not obliged to index link pre 88 GMP in payment at all - it must index link post 88 GMP up to 3% CPI (formerly RPI).

Under the old state pension regime, once the State Pension came into payment, pre GMP 88 and post 88 GMP in excess of 3% could be index linked through increases on Additional State Pension after taking into account the Contracted Out Deduction.

BUT, where an occupational pension had been deferred, and the GMP revalued in deferment by Fixed Rate, it was very often the case that the COD was so high that there was no index linking of AP.

Under the new State Pension regime, there is no longer any mechanism for index linking the GMP - therefore, unless the schemes themselves index link the pre 88 GMP and excess of 3% on post 88 GMP, pensioners will receive no increases either from the state or from their schemes.

The government has made special arrangements for a couple of years for "public service" schemes but it remains to be seen what will happen after that.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5588744

persistancepaysoff

I think all this pension legislation just gets in the way and is used to confuse and repel complainants.
What we are looking at is pure and simple contract law. The company who makes the contract must abide by it and cannot change it for the better or the worse. If something is missing they cannot insert it retrospectively. Neither can the policy holder make any changes. The whole point of a contract is to spell out how it will work in the coming years. Assumptions are not permissible and should be challenged. The industry does not like to be challenged!!!
Contract law was the basis of my complaint with Aviva and then the Pensions Ombudsman who upheld my point as all can see in his lengthy determination.
TOWAG is simply following the same criteria and challenging Aviva's assumption that they can do what they like and coach it in there terms to try to justify it.

towag

xylophone wrote: »

With regard to GMP, persons in a contracted out company pension scheme are in exactly the same position in regard to pre 88 and post 88 GMP.

Example http://s05.static-shell.com/content/dam/shell-new/local/business/pensions/downloads/pdf/guaranteed-minimum-pension-factsheet.pdf

The scheme is not obliged to index link pre 88 GMP in payment at all - it must index link post 88 GMP up to 3% CPI (formerly RPI).

Under the old state pension regime, once the State Pension came into payment, pre GMP 88 and post 88 GMP in excess of 3% could be index linked through increases on Additional State Pension after taking into account the Contracted Out Deduction.

BUT, where an occupational pension had been deferred, and the GMP revalued in deferment by Fixed Rate, it was very often the case that the COD was so high that there was no index linking of AP.

Under the new State Pension regime, there is no longer any mechanism for index linking the GMP - therefore, unless the schemes themselves index link the pre 88 GMP and excess of 3% on post 88 GMP, pensioners will receive no increases either from the state or from their schemes.

The government has made special arrangements for a couple of years for "public service" schemes but it remains to be seen what will happen after that.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5588744

THAT is WHY I am challenging it by way of complaint by the Pension Ombudsman.... I have nothing to lose by doing so... If I win, then so does everybody else that is in the same situation as me.... If you do not try, then these companies and the pensions industry as a whole will just keep getting away with these discrepancies and rip offs that they have been getting away with for far too long.... If you see an injustice then this is one way of bringing it to light, so that at least it can be challenged.... I do not see any other way.... :cool::mad::cool:

chrisuk1

persistancepaysoff wrote: »

To CHRISUK1
Yesterday I received a letter from Aviva offering me 3 options.
Option 1: A lump payment plus interest covering the money I should have been paid backdated to my 60th birthday. Also a monthly income rising to the GMP when I reach 65. My only annoyance is that I will be taxed on the lump sum. I have been a non-tax payer since I was 60 and if Aviva had paid me my income when it was due I would not have paid tax on it.

If you were a non tax payer then you should be able to apportion the arrears of your pension lump sum to the actual years you should have received them and apply for a tax rebate accordingly. Aviva will have the amounts of arrears for each tax year if you ask them for this information.

From Anthony Harris (AKA Persistancepaysoff)

Thanks for your reply.

I've been scrutinising the information 'Aviva' sent to me. They have given instructions on how to claim back the income tax that will be taken from the lump sum. I will need all my P60's going back to my 60th birthday. It was a headache but I've found them!!

Chris

HowardRoberts

I agree entirely. I decided to take the Norwich Union Section 32 transfer on the basis of the information I was presented with by Norwich Union, which states quite clearly that the benefits will increase by 3% pa. There was no mention of pre/post 88 earnings. I signed and bit of paper accepting their terms, and have an acknowledgement from them (dated 1989) to say they accept it. I can not accept that a company thinks that it can change the rules to suit itself - it makes a nonsense of the whole concept of a contract. That is why I am also preparing a case to present to the Pensions Ombudsman. The more of us that do this, the more chance we all have of obtaining justice.

WBCPB

Another company found against:http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=105822], contract originally signed with NPI [National Provident Institute]who were then taken over by Phoenix Life,maybe this will become another big mis-selling scandal as many of these contracts are now maturing?
If this contract is the same as mine[ NPI ] it has the infamous "one sentence missing" actually present,and still found against.Paid out before the ombudsman flexed his little biceps,sounds like they knew they were on a hiding to nothing! I will let you know how my complaint ends when i get my reply from the ombudsman.
The link above does not seem to work,the Decision Ref: DRN0854435 can be used to search the database,enter the search from date 01-01-2015

Regards