NHS pension - do widowers really lose out

Livilion

My wife is due to retire from the NHS after 39 years of service. I was reading through the T&Cs of her pension and I came across the following....Can this be true! Widows are eligible for half their partners full pension but Widowers are only due half their partners pension based on service after 1988. Does my wife's contributions from 1978 to 1988 count for nothing?


What will happen in the event of my death?

The NHS scheme provides benefits to your dependents in the event of your death following retirement. The benefits payable depend on your circumstances at the time of your death and on your service in the scheme.
As with other benefits available from the NHS Superannuation Scheme (Scotland), there are different qualifying conditions or types of benefits available depending on when you joined the scheme. The following separates the two different parts of the scheme for ease of understanding.
1995 Section

A Surviving Widow’s pension amounts to half of your pension that is in payment when you die, although there is an initial short-term pension payable at the full rate for the first three months following death.
A Surviving Widower’s/Civil partner/Nominated partner’s Pension amounts to half of your pension in payment, based on service after 6th April 1988. Any female member’s service prior to this date does not count towards widower’s benefits.

molerat

Quite common. Many pensions did not have a widower's pension - women were not responsible for looking after the breadwinner ! - and the lower payments into the scheme by female members reflected this.

Moonwolf

My wife is in the 1995 scheme with service before 1988 so I'm in the same situation.

As I understand it women used to pay lower pension contributions because it was assumed husbands would look after them and not vice versa. Women also used to pay a lower National Insurance stamp.

Silvertabby

Similar rules did/do apply to the Armed Forces and the LGPS - but not so much now, as long as other conditions are met.

In both cases, post retirement marriages complicate things, so each case would be looked at differently.

In the case of the LGPS the pre 1988 service only counts if the woman was an active, contributing member, of the scheme when the rules changed in 1997.

After the 1988 changes, but before the 1997 changes, LGPS women were given the option of paying the extra contributions and therefore converting all of their service into widower's benefit earning terms. They could either pay monthly, or pay a one-off lump sum from their retirement lump sum. Does the NHS offer this? That said, very few LGPS ladies seemed to take up the offer as it was very expensive.

EDIT: Hopefully, an NHS expert will chip in and tell me if I'm wrong, but the way I read it is:

1995 scheme. Widower's pension = 50% of member's pension but based on post 1988 service only.

2008 Scheme. Widower's pension is based on ALL of member's service, but is only 33.3% of member's pension.

Crystal ball time, I'm afraid.

crv1963

Yes from what you have quoted from the scheme rules, you will get a reduced widowers survivors pension compared to a widow getting a survivors pension.


The pension provisions were based on society at the time, equality was not as it is now and the 1995 scheme even with the reduction is more generous to widows and widowers than later 2008/ 2015 versions!


So either your wife has to outlive you or you need to plan/ save for the reduction if you are significantly younger/ healthier than her. Sorry if the last paragraph/ sentence sounds a bit harsh!

Livilion

Thanks all for your responses. With a bit of help from Mr Google I found that a few test cases for Widowers who sadly found themselves in such a situation.... here's one such I found by by googling......

"husband claims sex discrimination over NHS pension ombudsman"

It's funny how the powers at be decided in favour of the NHSBSA as it would cost too much if changes were to be made retrospectively..

Strange that the same consideration wasn't made for women who are losing out because of the alignment of State pension for men and women.

BobQ

Livilion wrote: »

Thanks all for your responses. With a bit of help from Mr Google I found that a few test cases for Widowers who sadly found themselves in such a situation.... here's one such I found by by googling......

"husband claims sex discrimination over NHS pension ombudsman"

It's funny how the powers at be decided in favour of the NHSBSA as it would cost too much if changes were to be made retrospectively..

Strange that the same consideration wasn't made for women who are losing out because of the alignment of State pension for men and women.

I think you are not being fair or logical.

The NHS pension does not have a pension fund but pays has an actuarial value of the cost of providing the pension benefits based on average life expectancy. But if someone did not make full contributions for some of their working life why should they take more than that share of the pension's resources?

Your view of this problem is too simplistic. Think of it as if your wife had been paying for a guaranteed pension for herself and an insurance policy that had she died say 20 years ago would have paid you a half pension for as long as you lived and provided any children with a partial pension up to the age of 18.

What you are expecting is that you would get a half pension based on contributions that were never made prior to 1988. In effect you are saying that working members of the pension scheme today should pay for you to receive pension your wife never made. Pensions usually work on the basis that you cannot retrospectively change the benefits earned to date.

bigadaj

Livilion wrote: »

Thanks all for your responses. With a bit of help from Mr Google I found that a few test cases for Widowers who sadly found themselves in such a situation.... here's one such I found by by googling......

"husband claims sex discrimination over NHS pension ombudsman"

It's funny how the powers at be decided in favour of the NHSBSA as it would cost too much if changes were to be made retrospectively..

Strange that the same consideration wasn't made for women who are losing out because of the alignment of State pension for men and women.

What do you mean by the last sentence, doesn't seem correct to me?

zagfles

Livilion wrote: »

Thanks all for your responses. With a bit of help from Mr Google I found that a few test cases for Widowers who sadly found themselves in such a situation.... here's one such I found by by googling......

"husband claims sex discrimination over NHS pension ombudsman"

It's funny how the powers at be decided in favour of the NHSBSA as it would cost too much if changes were to be made retrospectively..

Strange that the same consideration wasn't made for women who are losing out because of the alignment of State pension for men and women.

There was a case recently where a gay man went to the supreme court and won equal pension rights for his spouse, and there was a lot of talk of the implications of this judgement on schemes which treat widows and widowers differently, as it's exactly the same principle.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jul/12/man-wins-equal-pension-rights-for-husband-at-supreme-court

https://www.towerswatson.com/en/Insights/Newsletters/Europe/UK-Corporate-and-Trustee-Briefing/2017/08/Pensions-for-same-sex-spouses

hyubh

Livilion wrote: »

With a bit of help from Mr Google I found that a few test cases for Widowers who sadly found themselves in such a situation.... here's one such I found by by googling......

"husband claims sex discrimination over NHS pension ombudsman"

It's funny how the powers at be decided in favour of the NHSBSA as it would cost too much if changes were to be made retrospectively.

The Ombudsman doesn't have the power to force retrospective benefit increases on pension schemes - that has to be done in legislation by the government, and happens very rarely. The fact the NHS scheme is a public sector, unfunded one doesn't really come into it - the same goes for private sector DB.

PS - why is costing a lot of money not a reasonable consideration, given the topic is widower benefits that were were never originally promised or even suggested at?

TARDIS

The BMA challenged this, but lost. The main argument from the government seemed to be if they allowed this change in the NHS scheme they would need to allow it across other public sector schemes and they can't afford the extra £4bn it would cost.

Interestingly they have made the change equalising women's rights in a small number of schemes, including one which affects MPs.