HM Forces Pension following new ruling on cohabiting couples

tonyhillside

I have queried my position with the HM Forces pension people. I receive a pension after serving with HM Forces and have lived with my partner since October 2003 but we are not married. I see no difference here to examples quoted on the news over the last couple of days. Yet the HM Forces pension people state that there will be no change to their current policy which is that unless you are married your partner gets nothing upon your death. Has anyone else queried this or any views on how they can get away with this? Thanks

atush

My view is, get married. Then no problem.

There are a whole lot of reasons why, pensions and taxes being 2 big ones.
Anyway, the case was only just decided. Gonna take a while before each dept gets with the program.

xylophone

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/editors-viewpoint/court-pension-ruling-makes-perfect-sense-35435892.html

It doesn't appear at this stage as if the Supreme Court's decision is a virtual blank cheque for co-habitees who survive their partners who had public sector occupational pensions.

And why on earth didn't the chap complete a nomination form? It would have saved the woman so much trouble and distress!

PensionTech

I think the recent ruling in the news didn't hinge on the difference between married and unmarried couples as much as the difference between unmarried couples who had signed a bit of paper (the nomination form) and unmarried couples who hadn't signed a bit of paper. In that scheme, unmarried partners could have a pension if they'd been nominated by the deceased member (and could prove they'd been cohabiting for at least 2 years and had financial links, if I understand correctly). The ruling seemed to be that it was discriminatory to have such an important entitlement turn on something arbitrary like a form that hadn't been signed by someone who couldn't see his own premature death coming.

However, many pension schemes don't pay out to unmarried partners at all, form or no form, and they're entitled to do so. This ruling probably has no bearing on that. Your scheme sounds like it's one of those. While you may have reasons to object to getting married, married couples are afforded many perks that unmarried couples aren't, and this just happens to be one of them.

(I must say I haven't investigated this case very thoroughly and am basing my interpretation from a few news reports, so please don't take this as gospel.)

Andy_L

https://forcespensionsociety.org/news/unmarried-woman-wins-supreme-court-battle-and-right-to-claim-survivors-pension/

molerat

From Andy L's link above it looks like AFPS 05 & 15 are already compliant with this ruling ie no form filling but 75 does not offer a non married partner pension except during active service with an attributable death.

Silvertabby

The Armed Forces will now pay co-habiting partner's pensions in certain circumstances - depends on which AFPS scheme you were in. However, the regulation changes were not made retrospective, so if OP had already left then they wouldn't apply.

As atush says, OP has the option of getting married - unless that's a non-starter because one or both are still married to someone else - in which case they wouldn't qualify under the new rules either.

atush

In which case a divorce by one or both is in order?

If you care enough about a partner to be worried about them after your death why not marry?

Esp if you could in the meantime gain tax relief off them?

Mystifies me really?

Keep_pedalling

atush wrote: »

In which case a divorce by one or both is in order?

If you care enough about a partner to be worried about them after your death why not marry?

Esp if you could in the meantime gain tax relief off them?

Mystifies me really?

Sometime a matter of principle overrules common sense.

Silvertabby

I don't think anyone should get really excited about this ruling, as I can't see it having far reaching consequences.

The chap in the recent case was a member of the (Northern Ireland) LGPS. The LGPS has rulings, and it has descretions, so one Local Authority may decide to do things slightly differently to the next one. The LGPS I worked for required the completion of a cohab nomination form when it became possible to pay benefits to unmarried partners in 2008. Then, in 2014, the requirement for the form was lifted - the surviving partner just had to prove that they had been in a partnership/financially interdependent for at least 2 years when making the claim. LGPS Northern Ireland may not have ditched the requirement for the form in 2014, but it's not a huge stretch for them to fall into line with what many other LGPS's are doing.

P.S. - The forms couldn't always be relied on, hence their abolition in 2014. When they were introduced to great fanfare in 2008 we were swamped with forms from people who obviously hadn't bothered to read the Ts&Cs properly. A great deal were from married people, which caused no end of extra work because each one had to be queried "your record shows that you are married but you have now declared that you are not married, just cohabbing - please confirm" Cue complaints from people who don't know the difference between married and cohabbing, not made any easier by the common misconception that 'common law spouse' actually means something! Then there was the guy who rang for a 'different' form because he wanted to nominate his live-in girlfriend to receive a partner's pension, but his 'cow of a wife' was dragging her heels over the divorce......