Aviva/Norwich Union Section 32 Buyout policy holders?

towag

M_j_t wrote: »

towag, The problem I have is currently I have nothing to complain about (other than the atrocious complaint management(sic) process, even then I guess the PO would say contact them first) as there has been no response to the complaint I made.

Sorry, are we missing the point here? I'm on about your Escalation Percentage Rate EPR of either 3% for those post 1988 and 5% for those pre 1988 which according to Aviva is paid by the government or part paid by the government pre 1988 or post 1988... There is nothing in your policy that says that, is there?... I know there's nothing in mind that states that or in Mr Anthony Harris's Policy either... We have had personal contact since his determination from the PO and he is in total agreement with my complaint... I would suspect that your policy is somehow similar, if not almost identical to ours, so if you don't want to be paid your EPR at compound interest from your 65th or SPA and you are happy with that,or cant be bothered to fight for it, then good luck to you... Apologies for bothering you... :cool::)

M_j_t

Towag,
perhaps you misinterpreted what I said. If I'm entitled to an EPR then yes I would join the fight to get it. However, at this point in time, I'm not being deprived of that, I think. If you believe that I could add weight to the issue then let me know how (noting that I don't really understand - some questions below re EPR).

My policy includes the following (section/condition 7)

Provision may be made for all or any pensions purchased under this Condition to increase at a percentage rate not exceeding in total 8.5% compound from each anniversary of the Benefit Date or the Substitute Benefit Date provided that no pension may exceed whichever is appropriate of the Maximum Pension, Maximum's Widow's Pension or Maximum Dependant's Pension increased by the accumulated increase in the Retail Prices Index published in the calendar month preceding the month in which the anniversary occurs since that published in the calendar month preceding the month in which the Benefit Date or the Substitute Benefit Date occurred or by 3% compound per annum whichever is the greater less in the case of a pension payable to the Insured the pension equivalent of any cash sum taken at the Benefit date or Substitute Benefit Date. If the value of the Retail Prices Index is not published in any particular month the most recently published value will be applied.

Annual increases in the Guaranteed Minimum Pension and the Guaranteed Minimum Widow's Pension shall be taken into account.

Additionally under DEFINITIONS/GUARANTEED MINIMUM PENSION it has :

...... and increasing annually from State Pensionable Age in respect of that part earned from 6th April 1988 at a compound rate of 3%.

So there is nothing in regard to increases for the pre April 6th 1988 earnings. (basically the same for when/if the Widow's Pension kicks in).

I'm actually confused, as I see it Condition 7 is close to guaranteeing 3%-8.5% increase. I say close, as may doesn't mean must/will/shall. So as that's a condition (barring the ambiguity of the use of the word may) so that will apply.

Isn't GMP then no longer pertinent (bar the following )as such as the GMP has been converted into a pension?

Is it that the really the argument is about the 2% difference between 3% and 5% for the pre April 6th 1988 earnings?

Are the employer's contributions counted as earnings?

Mcgoverg

M_j_t.
1st of all I confess to having only skimmed the details on this thread but ref your comments yesterday let me just give you my experience and current situation with Aviva re 2 S32s I have with them.

One has a benefit date at age 65 and will not achieve a fund value to provide anything other than the GMP.
The other has a benefit date at age 62 and , like others, I received a letter about 6 years ago that said this one would not pay any benefit until age 65 due to the lack of value in the fund.
To be honest I simply ignored this at the time but now as I approach my 60th birthday and having already stopped work, I'm paying much more attention to these matters.

So about 4 weeks ago I called Aviva, having read about the Harris case, and started off by asking the call-centre chap to simply confirm what the policies would pay out at maturity.

I'd already calculated these and he provided identical values to those I'd calculated which was a good start. I then said, and will the policy which matures in 2019 pay out then.

He immediately said ' oh well you know that markets have not performed blah blah...and therefore re it will pay out in 2022'

I said 'I suppose you have heard of Harris vs Aviva ' and he then said that he wasn't really an expert on S32 and would have someone call me back within 48 hours. True to that someone called me next day and I asked if the Harris ruling would apply in my case. He said it would and that they would provide me with an illustration which I've now received.

The illustration details payout starting in 2019 at the revalued value of the GMP (so the compound value of the original GMP after 31 years). In then increases by 8.5 compound through 2020 and 2021before reaching the final GMP value at my 65th birthday in 2022.

So on the one hand I'm pretty satisfied. I've got written confirmation of all the figures and dates and they are not trying to delay payment till 2022. On the other hand I'm slightly miffed that they are not paying out the full GMP from 2019. Having read the Harris case a number of times I'm still not clear if he received the full GMP value ( as at age 65) from age 60 or whether like with me, it was escalated in those first years of payment.

Hopefully this is all clear, happy to try again if not.
Gerry

towag

M_j_t wrote: »

Towag,
perhaps you misinterpreted what I said. If I'm entitled to an EPR then yes I would join the fight to get it. However, at this point in time, I'm not being deprived of that, I think. If you believe that I could add weight to the issue then let me know how (noting that I don't really understand - some questions below re EPR).

My policy includes the following (section/condition 7)
Additionally under DEFINITIONS/GUARANTEED MINIMUM PENSION it has :

So there is nothing in regard to increases for the pre April 6th 1988 earnings. (basically the same for when/if the Widow's Pension kicks in).

I'm actually confused, as I see it Condition 7 is close to guaranteeing 3%-8.5% increase. I say close, as may doesn't mean must/will/shall. So as that's a condition (barring the ambiguity of the use of the word may) so that will apply.

Isn't GMP then no longer pertinent (bar the following )as such as the GMP has been converted into a pension?

Is it that the really the argument is about the 2% difference between 3% and 5% for the pre April 6th 1988 earnings?

Are the employer's contributions counted as earnings?

Please read what I've said... There is No EPR from State Pension Age when your EPR should kick in on your GMP annually in arrears, either at 5% pre 1988 or 3% post 1988. That means that Aviva have no responsibility to pay your GMP EPR because of their interpretation of Government legislation, and which the Government are supposed to pay, but won't, from the New State Pension that came into force in April 2016... As far as I'm aware, that is what nobody seems to have cottoned onto, unless I'm just not savvy enough to see that? You tell me...?
http://www.aviva-for-advisers.co.uk/adviser/site/public/tech-centre/tech-article-detail/section-32-arrangements-gmps-and-transferring
If you were "contracted out" you will receive a lower state pension than those who werent, even though you have the necessary qualifying 35 years.... Comprendo?
The EPR is supposed to make up for that shortfall.... Getting the drift yet...???
That means NO ONE will get any EPR on their GMP from SPA as the "fund" at £39 billion GBP!! has not "performed adequately enough" to pay anyone with a Norwich Section 32 buyout plan regardless of what was paid in originally... So how come the fund is worth 39 billion quid and Aviva can easily afford to pay their CEO Mark Wilson his vast salary, pensions etc etc ???
https://www.trustnet.com/Factsheets/Factsheet.aspx?fundCode=NQF50&univ=P
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
????
I'll say no more and quite honestly, IF you don't want to join the fight, then nobody can make you, but you have absolutely nothing to lose by doing so... Do you... :cool::)

chrisuk1

Hey 'Towag'. Why so aggressive? We are all trying our best to understand the implications of this type of pension and what Aviva are offering us. It doesn't really help when you shout at us!! Comprendo?

towag

chrisuk1 wrote: »

Hey 'Towag'. Why so aggressive? We are all trying our best to understand the implications of this type of pension and what Aviva are offering us. It doesn't really help when you shout at us!! Comprendo?

Hey Chrisuk1 !! Not shouting or being aggressive... Just pointing out VERY CLEARLY what everybody seems to be missing!! If you cant see that, then why should I bother to help you guys out?
Like I said earlier and reading what everybody is doing, which is basically beating around the bush instead of seeing directly what's in front of them and by cutting out the "legal" claptrap being given out by Aviva which is designed and written to bamboozle people, so that they are too intimidated to do anything or even challenge them, then who am I to "shout"?
If you want my help or opinion in this and how I see it, then you only have to read all my posts on this subject of Aviva and its Norwich Union Section 32 copout... I don't beat about the bush, I just go straight for the jugular as that is the only way to deal with giant insurance bullies like Aviva... Comprendo?
If you don't want my "experience" with Aviva and the fact that if it was not for Mr Anthony Harris, and his dogged persistence, who I have taken the trouble to meet and befriend, and who happens to be a fine chap, you and I would not be seeing our pension until 65 plus NO EPR!!.... He entirely agrees with me, and IF we win this battle over the EPR, then EVERYONE stands to gain not just me... So IF you are up for it and want this very important part of your pension paid to you when its due, then I'm suggesting that you get your complaint in with the PO ASAP... If not then have a nice day... Kind regards... Towag :cool::)

M_j_t

Towag wrote:

As far as I'm aware, that is what nobody seems to have cottoned onto, unless I'm just not savvy enough to see that? You tell me...?

I did tell you in that I said

M_j_t wrote:

However, at this point in time, I'm not being deprived of that, I think. If you believe that I could add weight to the issue then let me know how (noting that I don't really understand - some questions below re EPR).

I then asked a few questions. Which you appear to have not read and have certainly not answered. Leave me in the dark and there is a likelihood that, due to my not understanding, that I will do nothing. Get me to the point of understanding and I will be more likely to do something. Your choice.

If you mean that the State Age Pension will not increase, then being down under does that anyway i.e. if you are in a "Frozen Country", such as Australia, you get no indexation nor some other benefits that you first class citizens receive for the same contribution (unless you get the chance to thaw out for a while in a warmer climate ) so are basically a second class citizen.

I've looked, yet again, at the link you provided to the Tech Centre article. I did a search for EPR, no hits. I did a search for esc 1 hit in the table in Next Steps, in the PESRONAL PENSION/SIPP column, as per

Pension can be level or escalating with all of the cost met by the member. This could mean that a higher initial pension is achieved for post 1988 benefits.

Which I assume is irrelevant to this EPR.

I re-iterate

Get me to the point of understanding and I will be more likely to do something. Your choice.

=========================

So on the one hand I'm pretty satisfied. I've got written confirmation of all the figures and dates and they are not trying to delay payment till 2022. On the other hand I'm slightly miffed that they are not paying out the full GMP from 2019. Having read the Harris case a number of times I'm still not clear if he received the full GMP value ( as at age 65) from age 60 or whether like with me, it was escalated in those first years of payment.

I'm basically in the same boat, with regard to GMP payment, as yourself, although my assumption was that the GMP would likely be lower (I believe that I asked about this on here, in another post, but got no response to that question. However, that was along with other questions). As such I've assumed that I would initially get 1247.69 (GMP as of 2017) and that this would then rise to 1791.40 by 2022).

towag

M_j_t wrote: »

I did tell you in that I said

I then asked a few questions. Which you appear to have not read and have certainly not answered. Leave me in the dark and there is a likelihood that, due to my not understanding, that I will do nothing. Get me to the point of understanding and I will be more likely to do something. Your choice.

If you mean that the State Age Pension will not increase, then being down under does that anyway i.e. if you are in a "Frozen Country", such as Australia, you get no indexation nor some other benefits that you first class citizens receive for the same contribution (unless you get the chance to thaw out for a while in a warmer climate ) so are basically a second class citizen.

I've looked, yet again, at the link you provided to the Tech Centre article. I did a search for EPR, no hits. I did a search for esc 1 hit in the table in Next Steps, in the PESRONAL PENSION/SIPP column, as per


Which I assume is irrelevant to this EPR.

I re-iterate


=========================


I'm basically in the same boat as yourself, although my assumption was that the GMP would likely be lower (I believe that I asked about this on here, in another post, but got no response to that question. However, that was along with other questions). As such I've assumed that I would initially get 1247.69 (GMP as of 2017) and that this would then rise to 1791.40 by 2022).

I cant make myself any clearer... Please read all the posts I've made on this subject... IF you decide that you don't want to complain to the PO about non payment of your EPR then thats fine, No skin of my nose ... (Look through the other threads regarding Aviva/Norwich Union section 32 threads where I've made it as clear as I see it) It's about getting to the point which I've done.... If you want to bog yourself down in Aviva's and other "legalities" which are not relevant, (Australia?) and does not get to the point on whether or not it is actually written in your "contract", (which you are basically doing), then I have nothing more to say that will help you decide... IT really is up or down to you at the end of the day.... Enjoy your pension minus EPR if that is what you are happy with... IF not then get your complaint into the PO ASAP and best of luck, as we are going to need it!! Regards Towag...:):(:cool:

M_j_t

If you want to bog yourself down in Aviva's and other "legalities" which are not relevant, (Australia?) and does not get to the point on whether or not it is actually written in your "contract", (which you are basically doing), then I have nothing more to say that will help you decide...

Are you an agent for Aviva? You are trying to promote me ignoring getting a pension at age 60, and thus throw away the something around 7,250 (the pension I could obtain taking it now), and chase some very poorly designed whinge that you cannot answer questions about nor explain. NOT GOING TO WORK

PS IF you actually read what I posted, then I posted what is in my contract, which shows that there is very likely provision for some form of indexation. Do you really expect to get people on board when you show so little respect for others? Of course, you've missed the most likely option that many would take, that is to just wait and see what the outcome of your complaint is, which without doubt you will post here, and if it's positive then it's as simple as complaining quoting the POS finding or, on the other hand, get the nothing result for nothing expended that option I believe you have made abundantly clear without even trying.

towag

M_j_t wrote: »

Are you an agent for Aviva? You are trying to promote me ignoring getting a pension at age 60, and thus throw away the something around 7,250 (the pension I could obtain taking it now), and chase some very poorly designed whinge that you cannot answer questions about nor explain. NOT GOING TO WORK

PS IF you actually read what I posted, then I posted what is in my contract, which shows that there is very likely provision for some form of indexation. Do you really expect to get people on board when you show so little respect for others? Of course, you've missed the most likely option that many would take, that is to just wait and see what the outcome of your complaint is, which without doubt you will post here, and if it's positive then it's as simple as complaining quoting the POS finding or, on the other hand, get the nothing result for nothing expended that option I believe you have made abundantly clear without even trying.

Hey fella, there's an old saying where I come from, and how it deals with bullies, which Aviva are, regardless of making hollow apologies on paper for their arrogance in NOT paying out what they are obliged to do and have been found wrong and wanting... They could not care less about you, me, or anybody else that has a grievance against them, as we all do... Its got nothing to do as to whether I respect you, or are trying to get you onboard, or anybody else with regards to this subject... I've pointed out my grievance, and if it does not tally with you, then there is nothing more for me to say, other than "He who hesitates is lost"
Either you are "onboard" or you're not...
Your decision...
The other thing I've noticed in real fights with bullies, is that the "cowards" always stand back afraid, while the real "fighters" in this world tend to do all the work, while the "cowards" standing back afraid, hopes the "fighter" will win, so they are not the next intended victim and can live their lives in "comfort" without lifting a finger... The worst type of human in my eyes...
No, I'm not an agent for Aviva....
Have a nice day... :cool::D