BT Pension Scheme

tigerspill

DK68 wrote: »

y32k.org will now battle this for Closure Members (Those retiring from the Scheme or forced into Deferment from 6th April 2016 onwards)

Who are y32k? Just shows a password entry page.

DK68

It is a Closure Members Group (Class) that by invite , allows 32000 Closure Members concerned with Scheme Closure Engineering (as opposed to the Closure itself) to join together. The Group is an invite only Membership so that the correct cohort is assembled.

Y32k is seeking to remove Single Tier State Pension Interception (what the previously neutral impacting Offset became after 5th April 2016). We have noted your earlier Thread comments on earlier threads around State Pension Offset. We have seen the ids of concerned parties starting the threads back to Dec 2015.

If we accept that the Foundation amounts were increased by the 7 years of true Offset from 2009 - 2016 , when S2P was subsumed into Foundation Amounts (STSP reset), then post 5th April 2016 becomes another amount that needs full exploration.

Y32K will promote the Overall Accrual (80ths or 90ths) protection of BTPS Members Active in the Scheme on 6th April 2016.

The 1/35th Accrual from the Single Tier Foundation point has been getting intercepted by the Scheme. Thus reducing Scheme Accrual in the legally binding Comprehensive Agreement of November 2008. This interception has taken place regardles of 1/35 STSP Accrual or Maximum State Pension Reached between 6th April 2016 and June 30th 2018.

The first mentioning of the Scheme being on average a 1/105ths Scheme (for none managers)appeared in late summer 2017.


if the case becomes one of loss recovery , y32k will seek to recover losses (the post 2016 Offset Payment) from the Trade Union Signatories. They would then have to seek onward recovery.

The Scheme was expected to run to a legally binding 2008 Agreement to May 30th 2018.
Instead it ran a Pension Accrual Reduction (NPA + 1 or 2 year Facade Scheme), masquerading in the the Offset change of use.

After the neutral Offset ended in 2016 with S2P Abolished, An accelerated and age discrimantory Offset ran from 6th April 2016. Age 16 and above in 1978 meant that post 2016 a dual accelerated Offset ran. An S2P Calculation boost bias inverted from 6th April 2016 (Working Life to SPA in 1978).

No Statutory Powers to change Accrual in Contracted In Schemes were granted in 2016.

The National Insurance Act came into force by September 21st 2008. That Introduced the UAP to support the year on year reducing of S2P Accrual. By 2030 it was to have become a flat rate top up only (Band1). In 2008 the UEL was fixed and given a name of UAP and S2P would then track that £40,040 upper limit on earnings attracting S2P Accrual (a cap so that S2P Benefitted low to moderate incomes and did not follow the Upper Earnings Limit before the Cap would apply).

Since 6th April 2016 , Overtime hours , shift pay have been reducing Pensions via the Offset , as has age reached by 1978.
The only opposite force was if an individual had been making extra Pension Contributions like AVC.

DK68

The November 2008 Agreement link will be posted soon.

Then you can judge your Trade Union

youtube.com/watch?v=mKTrbegEmK0

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7722031.stm

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7791778.stm

The Unions will be asked to cover the Offset Losses from 6th April 2016.

Never again will this level of Integrity be left unchecked.

The links tell us a legally binding Agreement was in place from 2009 - 2018.
They tell us that certain signatories to Legally Binding Agreements are reckless and that any Agreement with those parties is worthless (except in law).

At no point did the Legal Agreement Allow for reducing Accrual (hidden) and Stealth Interception of the NEW single Tier State Pension and Loss of Employment ties to Closed pension Access (the circumvention of Deferred Member Rights held in 2006).

This is the CWU's feeble attempt to uphold the legally binding 2008 Agreement :
Prospect (formerly Connect) is silent so far although it has open dispute from 2014 around Open Scheme Pension Access Denial, yet is quiet on Closed Pension Access *Deferred Member) Unqualified Rights.

"
State Pension Changes from 6 April 2016

27 March 2016

On 6 April 2016, the UK’s state pension arrangements change significantly and this will affect all BT members in the BT Pension Scheme (BTPS) and the BT Retirement Saving Scheme (BTRSS).
The changes are complex and will affect different people in different ways. Some are likely to see improvements in their State pensions, but a significant number are likely to receive lower pensions from the State than under current arrangements. The impact will not be the same across the various BT pension schemes. The impact on members of Sections B and C of the BTPS are particularly complex, while the impact on Section A of the BTPS and the BTRSS is more straightforward.
Members of the BTPS are being sent detailed communications from BT explaining what the broad impact could be and setting out what the CWU and the company are currently doing to address the issues created by these changes to state pensions. BTPS members should read this briefing in conjunction with the BT communications.
The State Pension Changes
On 6 April 2016, the Government is introducing a Single Tier Pension (STP) to replace the existing Basic State Pension (BSP) and State Second Pension (S2P).
This change has been described by the Government as a simplification of the existing complex state pension arrangements. It has been promoted by reference to the fact that the highest level of Single Tier Pension is greater than the highest level of Basic State Pension. However, the new arrangements will also deliver large reductions in Government spending in the future and many will end up with lower State pensions than under the existing system.
Under the current arrangements all those paying National Insurance contributions build up a Basic State Pension and, in addition, for those “contracted in” to the State Second Pension, an additional earnings related second tier pension is provided. Those “contracted in” to this State Second Pension pay higher National Insurance contributions, as does their employer, and in return receive a higher state pension.
Those “contracted out” of the State Second Pension arrangements, pay a lower level of National Insurance contributions – again as does their employer – and in return get only the Basic State Pension. However, those contracted out receive a pension from their employer’s Scheme which is at least as good as the State provision for the opted out period.
From 6 April 2016, the notion of contracting in and contracting out of the State Second Pension will be abolished, and everyone will pay the higher rate of National Insurance contributions – as will all employers – and everyone will build up an entitlement to the new Single Tier Pension.
The overall impact of these state pension changes is complex and uneven. Some, typically those on lower incomes and who are also close to State retirement age, may receive higher state pensions. However, for many CWU members, especially those who have many years to go before State retirement age and those on higher salaries, the Single Tier Pension will be lower than the combination of the Basic State Pension and S2P would have been.
The Impact on BTPS Members
The impact of the changes in the BTPS varies across the different Sections.
Section A
Section A has always been “contracted out” of the S2P. As a result of the Government changes this will change.
Members will start to pay the higher rate National Insurance contributions (as will BT) and they will build up an entitlement to the Single Tier Pension.
If Section A members have a full National Insurance contribution history since 1978, it is expected that the State pension will be greater under the new State system by a modest amount.
Most Section A members opt to join Section B prior to taking their BTPS pension and may want to familiarise themselves with the changes in that Section.
Sections B and C
From 6 April 2009, Sections B and C of the Scheme “contracted in” to S2P. This change only affected benefits built up from 6 April 2009. As a result BTPS members started to build up extra S2P as well as Basic State Pension entitlements.
This was a measure designed to reduce the level of risk the BTPS faced from having to pay pensions and to help ensure the Scheme remained open for future service. Essentially, we agreed that from 2009 onwards, the State would provide an element of the pension that had previously been provided by the BTPS.
As part of those changes the BTPS was linked directly to the operation of the S2P via a “State Pension Offset”. This operates as follows:
At BT retirement the BTPS pension is paid as normal.
At State pension age, both the Basic State Pension and the State Second Pension begin.
At state retirement age the BTPS pension is reduced by an amount as near as possible equal to the State Second Pension the individual has built up.
The overall net effect of the Offset is designed so that there is no change in total income in retirement. Although the BTPS pension is reduced the individual is in a situation where they would receive a retirement income equal to their BTPS pension plus their Basic State Pension. This is the same position members were in before the 2009 changes.
As a result of “opting in” to S2P from 2009 individuals and BT became liable to pay higher National Insurance contributions. However, as part of the 2009 Agreement these contributions – both the employee’s and the employer’s – are met by BT.
BT agreed with the Unions that in the event of a change to S2P where there was an impact on the way in which this arrangement operates, to review the arrangement, “with a view to neutralising the overall impact on members' benefits”. With the abolition of the S2P it is essential to review the arrangements that are currently in place.
This is because the BTPS State Pension Offset will continue to be operated as if S2P still exists. We understand that if nothing changes then over time for a significant number of CWU members the offset will become bigger than the difference between Basic State Pension and the new Single Tier Pension. In other words, at state retirement age, the individual’s income in retirement would be lower than expected.
As a result we are now reviewing these arrangements with BT. This is not an easy task as the impact will be different for almost everyone, as it will depend on a range of factors including age, income and length of BTPS membership.
We have some time in which to complete this review. The Government has introduced some transitional arrangements. We believe this means that provided individuals reach State retirement age by 2020, there will not be a detrimental effect from the changes. "

And here is the Assocociated Deed Engineering from 5th April 2016 @ 13:32 (1 week or so after the CWU notice of a Review that never took place)

"
4.8 State Pension Offset

The “State Pension Offset” means, with effect from 6 April 2009, an amount calculated as follows (based on the structure of State benefits under the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 as it was in force on 31 March 2009 and the values ascribed to its defined terms and factors from time to time in force). For the avoidance of doubt the State Pension Offset shall continue to apply in respect of Pensionable Service on and from 6 April 2016.


Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Rule, the amount of the State Pension Offset applicable to Service accrued on and after 6 April 2009 but before 6 April 2016 will be an amount calculated to be as near as practicable to the amount of the State second pension to which the Member becomes entitled as a consequence of the Scheme having become contracted-in on 6 April 2009. "


and so the DEED text Engineers an open door for the Accountants and Actuaries in a repurposed Offset (now an Accrual Reduction) deliberately attempting to Reduce against the new Single Tier State Pension Growth , regardless of if there was any STSP growth (as that is private and unseen so the Scheme makes reckless Amendments and Assumptions that bring material negative impact for those Members.

Note there is NO Calculation specified and the Offset is no longer to be

'an amount calculated to be as near as practicable to the amount of the State second pension to which the Member becomes entitled as a consequence of the Scheme having become contracted-in on 6 April 2009'

As near as practicable to S2P from 6th April is zero , as it does not exist.
The Pre 2016 Offset had been subsumed into Single Tier State Pension Foundations and had to freeze at that point in spirit and Deed of the 2008 Legally binding Agreement that had foresight to add text to cover Government retreats and abolishment of extra State Pension Earned.

The Agreement in no way allowed for the Government changes to be exploited to bring more material loss to the butchered BTPS Scheme and its Closure Members.

The Scheme is an overall 80th or 90ths Scheme and it is that for its entire Pension in payment life.
The Members have to accept pre 2016 Offset being subsumed in Foundations and so would not see that extra payment of Offset accumulated to 31st March 2016.

However In 2016 an attempt to make it an unknown Accrual took place after 1 or 2 years of Façade 80th or 90th BTPS Pension.
The Offence is gross and only a Court can decide if Pension Laws allowed this in Contracted In Schemes.

Here we have seen Carillion and BHS type Trust and Executive behviours repeated.
The Interception of the Single Tier State Pension 1/35 ths Accrual.

Amber Rudd has stated that the DWP are now coming for these people.
We will help the Secertary of State find them as they exist in many , many places of TRUST (Fiduciary).

hyubh

DK68 wrote: »

The November 2008 Agreement link will be posted soon.

Then you can judge your Trade Union

youtube.com/watch?v=mKTrbegEmK0

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7722031.stm

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7791778.stm

The Unions will be asked to cover the Offset Losses from 6th April 2016.

Never again will this level of Integrity be left unchecked.

Hmm, what are those links supposed to tell us? That the main union concerned looked to maintain DB pensions and did that...? With hindsight just going for decent DC for all may have been better, but that's hindsight for you...

DK68

Hindsight is a wonderful thing but Foresight is better !!

Foresight contained in the 2008 Legal Agreement Protections (text).


Then Actions like it never existed !!

Linking A private Contracted In Pension to the Single Tier State Pension ... and thinking that could be got away with !!

hyubh

DK68 wrote: »

Linking A private Contracted In Pension to the Single Tier State Pension ... and thinking that could be got away with

But it wasn't though, was it? It was a scheme design premised on contracted-in DB linked to S2P in a custom way. The details sound bizarre, but hey, private sector DB is full of bizarro complications only an actuary could truly love.

Applying Occam's Razor, the explanation of the union's position is that it was seeking the preservation of DB, so agreed to something a bit odd because it achieved that. That doesn't imply the union had any special interest in the particular scheme design achieved, unless further evidence shows otherwise. Maybe such evidence exists, but you haven't provided it.

As for your ultimate claim, that there was nefarious intent as well - I am completely at a loss as to why you think that. Copying and pasting large chunks of uncontroversial summaries of how nSP works proves absolutely nowt because they are frankly irrelevant!

DK68

Contracting Out ended in 2016 for ALL and for this Scheme in 2009.

Maybe you dont understand S2P. It was so , so complex before it was abolished.
So your doubts are understood.

A Scheme specifically and explicitly linked to S2P , then what implicitly ?

Amber Rudd has stated 'we are coming for you' ... and that is wholly endorsed sentiment.
Civil Proceedings are the best way to test this bar.
Any Maladministration of Pension Schemes cannot be tolerated where progressive Dividend Policies are in place alongside huge Deficits (real or Actuary bunkem ) .

With attempts to Exploit artificial Deficits and Deficit recovery taken from Pension Members.
(See CPI uprating attempts with £2.9 bn of £4.9 billion Deficit Recovery accomplished).
Two Court cases having protected 80,000 Members RPI Uprating specifically stated in their text. The CETV values taken containing RPI in those values (Now , not in the future).

The £180 million new Offset Reduction taking planned Deficit Recovery from Members Pension Values to £5 Billion.

That declared DWP sentiment will be tested to the limit due to the derisking of the Crown Guarnatee (gains) from the Closure.
If that was done on the nod then the message should have gone out loud and clear to not attempt to exploit the Closure any further than the Closure itself.

With this Closure the Scheme Accrual was throttled at stage 1 of Closure in 2016 and loss of Employment tied to Deferred Member Access of the Closed Pension.

From age 55, over £12 billion can be Transfered Out of this Scheme over the next 8 years. The stakes are very high.

Its not to be debated here , the right and the wrong - But in Court the Members versus the Trade Union 2008 Agreement Signatories.

Four Trustees (of nine) are Trade Union Appointed - This is no ordinary Private Sector Scheme.

Never expect Life to be fair and Principles cost you money AND the message to the Scheme and Union Accountants, so will Cost Principles.

Get ready for a 'true up'.

See Hogan Lovells :

April 2016 State Pension reform: the road ahead for your occupational pension scheme
A practical guide for employers and trustees
September 2015

ps - Friar William of Ockham, a scholastic philosopher and theologian has just told me (using his concept rather than from the Grave) that Bridging to the New Single Tier Pension Accrual is not allowed. You were right it was simple.

Enough fun was had by the Scheme to 2016. That was a great run once the S2P wasn't going to be paid, flagged from 2013, to keep the Offset Neutral.

hyubh

DK68 wrote: »

Contracting Out ended in 2016 for ALL and for this Scheme in 2009.

Right - so the scheme design you are complaining about was done in the context of S2P, not nSP.

Amber Rudd has stated 'we are coming for you' ... and that is wholly endorsed sentiment.

The current Work and Pensions Secretary has only been in post a few months - she has had absolutely nothing to do with the fate of BT pensions.

With attempts to Exploit artificial Deficits

So, rising longevity and lower interest gates pushing up the cost of matching assets are 'artificial' reasons for deficits...? DB provision right across the private sector has collapsed, if you haven't noticed...

(See CPI uprating attempts with £2.9 bn of £4.9 billion Deficit Recovery accomplished). Two Court cases having protected 80,000 Members RPI Uprating specifically stated in their text. The CETV values taken containing RPI in those values (Now , not in the future).

You may get sympathy for the fallout from the too-clever-by-half successor the old regular COSR scheme. Moaning about CPI replacing RPI though... well, even public sector pensions only get the former.

That declared DWP sentiment will be tested to the limit due to the derisking of the Crown Guarnatee (gains) from the Closure.

And about time that was too! It was ridiculous for the taxpayer to be backing a private company's generous pension arrangements that had nothing to do with legacy liabilities from pre-privatisation. Suck it up and enjoy the same sort of crappy DC arrangement that nearly everyone else in the private sector under the age of 45 sees as normal - or so an unsympathetic reader might think...

Four Trustees (of nine) are Trade Union Appointed - This is no ordinary Private Sector Scheme.

Some sort of formal union involvement isn't uncommon where unions remain strong due to former public sector ownership, or the institution being quasi-public sector.

Get ready for a 'true up'.

See Hogan Lovells :

April 2016 State Pension reform: the road ahead for your occupational pension scheme
A practical guide for employers and trustees
September 2015

Sorry, but you're at it again - dramatic statement, followed a reference to a general explainer that has nothing to say about BT in particular. If you disagree, point me to a pertinent paragraph...

DK68

oh so you get S2P now …and that I am talking about Trade Unions.

bit slow but progressing - and you see a sub 1/105ths Scheme linked to the loss (interception) of 1/35ths new ST SP Accrual as being Gold Plated ?


Worry not - we have been dealing with opposed characters for decades ... we call them our Advocates.

The Devil is in the detail.

hyubh

DK68 wrote: »

you see a sub 1/105ths Scheme linked to the loss of 1/35ths new ST SP Accrual as Gold Plated ?

Well I get 5% DC and make a voluntary employee contribution of 25%... Even leaving aside the crown guarantee issue, having big employers be responsible for their employees' future income in retirement is an anachronism - it's not how the modern world works.