Carillion Pensioners Action Group?

Game_Over_2

To be honest, I don't want to pry too much into his financial affairs. But I will ask about the opting out. I remember a couple of decades ago there was a huge fuss about purchasing an annuity -- I think he took a proportion of his pension as cash, which is yet another complicating factor.

I guess, taken as a whole, he's been lucky -- a long retirement, reasonably well funded. But he accrued it by working long hours on dangerous building sites (construction is more dangerous than mining). And at a time when everyone else was going off to earn supposed big bucks in Saudi, he thought he'd be better off staying where he was and putting the max into his pension.

The chance of early retirement beckoned, and he grabbed it. (Then, when head office realised he'd gone, they brought him back as a consultant to train his replacement!)

So, maybe it could be worse. And it's a magnificent survival for someone who was on 20 Senior Service a day. I should be grateful for that.

But I'm more than ever convinced that we're being blinded by acronyms and numbers so that we can't see the big picture. So that when we're told we 'can't afford' a nicer society we'll believe it.

I've signed up for the Pension Action Group mails and if there are any Carillion pensioners out there -- please Private Message me if you don't want to post publicly.

Anyway, thank you for your input everybody. It's given me a lot to think about.

xylophone

Will the PPF increase the GMP by CPI capped at 3% (their website implies not), and if not will the COD then be frozen going forwards for 88-97 accrual? Or will he lose CPI indexation on 88-97 GMP other than any excess over 3%?

I don't know but if the PPF does not increase the 88-97 GMP by up to 3% CPI, then clearly it must remain at the amount that it had reached when the pension fund went into the PPF.

This might have the effect of "fixing" the GMP as the pre 88 GMP is fixed.

Therefore the amount shown as COD on the State Pension Statement would be fixed from (say) 6.4.18 rather than increasing as it does if there is any post 88.

The AP amount shown on the state pension statement would increase each year by CPI and from this would be deducted the always fixed pre 88 COD and the "PPF fixed 88-97" COD.

But I have not yet found any information to support this interpretation.

hyubh

Game_Over wrote: »

To be honest, I don't want to pry too much into his financial affairs. But I will ask about the opting out.

No, not 'opting out' - that would imply he chose not to have a Carillion pension. Contracting out of SERPS or S2P, in contrast, would not have been something he chose to do; rather, the scheme itself would have been a contracted out scheme.

I remember a couple of decades ago there was a huge fuss about purchasing an annuity

He has a DB pension, so purchasing an annuity didn't come into it.

I think he took a proportion of his pension as cash, which is yet another complicating factor.

Not really, as PPF compensation levels for pensioners take no notice of whether the member had commuted for lump sum or not originally.

I guess, taken as a whole, he's been lucky -- a long retirement, reasonably well funded. But he accrued it by working long hours on dangerous building sites (construction is more dangerous than mining). And at a time when everyone else was going off to earn supposed big bucks in Saudi, he thought he'd be better off staying where he was and putting the max into his pension.

What do you mean, 'putting the max into his pension' - did he purchase added years? Or do you mean, he just contributed the standard rate for the time?

The chance of early retirement beckoned, and he grabbed it. (Then, when head office realised he'd gone, they brought him back as a consultant to train his replacement!)

So, maybe it could be worse. And it's a magnificent survival for someone who was on 20 Senior Service a day. I should be grateful for that.

But I'm more than ever convinced that we're being blinded by acronyms and numbers so that we can't see the big picture. So that when we're told we 'can't afford' a nicer society we'll believe it.

I'm confused... you've just spent several paragraphs explaining why he isn't particularly hard done by...

zagfles

Game_Over wrote: »

But I'm more than ever convinced that we're being blinded by acronyms and numbers so that we can't see the big picture. So that when we're told we 'can't afford' a nicer society we'll believe it.

Good job we have this thing called the internet where it takes a few seconds to google any acronyms you're unfamiliar with

The whole problem with pensions and complication, is successive government trying to make things "nicer". Back in the 70's and early 80's FS schemes didn't have statutory indexation, there was no protection, companies could remove the pension for misconduct etc. Companies used them as golden handcuffs, if you left early your pension would be worthless with no inflation protection, at a time when inflation around 10% was normal.

Politicians thought they'd force companies to make them "nicer" by all sorts of additional regulations such as indexation, protection etc in various different acts so we end up with complicated rules than affect bits of the pension differently, and in the end FS pensions were "niced" out of existence. Increasing regulation and obligations increased costs so much that they became unaffordable.

kidmugsy

zagfles wrote: »

The whole problem with pensions and complication, is successive government trying to make things "nicer". Back in the 70's and early 80's FS schemes didn't have statutory indexation, there was no protection, companies could remove the pension for misconduct etc. Companies used them as golden handcuffs, if you left early your pension would be worthless ....

If not the whole problem, that list is indeed a major part of it. By the way, when last I remarked that in the Good Old Days a pension could just evaporate when you changed jobs, several readers seemed reluctant to believe it.

zagfles

kidmugsy wrote: »

If not the whole problem, that list is indeed a major part of it. By the way, when last I remarked that in the Good Old Days a pension could just evaporate when you changed jobs, several readers seemed reluctant to believe it.

Well there've been posters here who've said it happened to them!

Game_Over_2

hyubh wrote: »

I'm confused... you've just spent several paragraphs explaining why he isn't particularly hard done by...

My apologies if I confused you -- I was trying to put a brave face on an upsetting situation.

Thank you for all your help and attempts to explain. I have learnt quite a lot.

kidmugsy

zagfles wrote: »

Well there've been posters here who've said it happened to them!

The threat of it was used to tie my FIL to a job from which he was tempted to move.