LGPS Deferred Pension lump sum

Silvertabby

Malchester wrote: »

Thanks Silvertabby.

Never worked for the fire service at all - worked a few years for Gateshead Council and then the rest of the time for Calderdale Council in Halifax - I am as dumbfounded as you about the whole thing but, having had three people at WYPF independently check it all I can only take what they have said as being accurate. It does make a huge difference to how I take the pension. At 1:12 I would have taken the lowest lump sum and maximum pension as it would only take 12 years before I would lose out. At the higher rate it will take almost 19 years (assuming interest on the lump sum and annual increases on the pension are equal) for me to lose out (when I will be 79). And with other pensions, plus the state pension kicking in later it is, to me, a no-brainer to take the largest tfls. All I need now is for them to receive my completed form and find out they were wrong!!!!!!!!

Yes - there's £500 difference between the two pensions, which is £10K over 20 years. Not to be sneezed at.

All I can say is that in all my experience as a LGPS administrator I have never come across a case of reserved rights to a better commutation rate than 1:12.

I can't sit here and say that the 3 people you spoke to are all wrong - but a little niggle at the back of my mind keeps saying that the only explanation is that the employer code on your computerised records is wrong. Do any of our documents show the name of your employer - and is it correct?

xylophone

http://www.wypf.org.uk/Member/Active/AboutYourPension/Linking/FactSheets/FactSheet_LinkingTypeD2B.aspx

I've no idea whether this is relevant to the OP's case but I noticed this


If, in 2007, you made an election to retain better pension to lump sum conversion rates for your deferred benefits,

and wondered whether there was some special arrangement in this particular section of the LGPS?

Notwithstanding the above, in the OP's position I would be asking the administrator to quote chapter and verse...

Malchester

Silver tabby - yes correct employer and online paperwork says the same - last employer was Calderdale Council

Silvertabby

xylophone wrote: »

http://www.wypf.org.uk/Member/Active/AboutYourPension/Linking/FactSheets/FactSheet_LinkingTypeD2B.aspx

I've no idea whether this is relevant to the OP's case but I noticed this


If, in 2007, you made an election to retain better pension to lump sum conversion rates for your deferred benefits,

and wondered whether there was some special arrangement in this particular section of the LGPS?

Notwithstanding the above, in the OP's position I would be asking the administrator to quote chapter and verse...

That was certainly not the case with the LGPS I worked for - the 'old rules' only referred to inverse commutation. I can say hand on heart that in my 20 years experience the commutation rate - including in the case of records deferred in the 1980s/1990s - has only ever been 1:12.

I'm wondering if this was something to do with the fact the WYPF did and do administer the Fire Service pension fund, and that there was some sort of cross-over between the 2 funds in the past.....

Malchester

Also I do not think I fall under the 85 rule as I am 60 this year but was in the LGPS for just over 11 years. Also, it cannot be anything to do with the fire service pension as I have never had any connection with the fire service whatsoever anytime in the past. I can only assume that the info I have been given is right. If the WYPF are wrong I am sure they will tell me at some point.

Silvertabby

Malchester wrote: »

Also I do not think I fall under the 85 rule as I am 60 this year but was in the LGPS for just over 11 years. Also, it cannot be anything to do with the fire service pension as I have never had any connection with the fire service whatsoever anytime in the past. I can only assume that the info I have been given is right. If the WYPF are wrong I am sure they will tell me at some point.

It's 11 years service plus your deferred service - ie, the years between leaving and age 60. Those years don't count towards your actual pension, but they do count towards R85.

In round figures:

1985 to 1994 = 11 years active service

1995 to 2018 = 23 years deferred membership

34 + 60 = 94, so well over 85.

kidmugsy

Silvertabby wrote: »

It's 11 years service plus your deferred service - ie, the years between leaving and age 60. Those years don't count towards your actual pension, but they do count towards R85.

Sometimes it's hard not to sympathise with people who rant on about the extravagance of the DB pensions of government employees.

Malchester

Thanks kid ugly, sorry that was predictive text kidmugsy. But don't forget my extravagant pension will be spent extravagantly on extravagant goods and services at extravagant prices in extravagant local shops to keep up the extravagant lifestyles of local people (lol) !!!!!!!!!

Silvertabby

kidmugsy wrote: »

Sometimes it's hard not to sympathise with people who rant on about the extravagance of the DB pensions of government employees.

R85 is being phased out, Someone retiring now at 60 will have less R85 protections than Malchester, as he left before the rules changed.

kidmugsy

Silvertabby wrote: »

R85 is being phased out, Someone retiring now at 60 will have less R85 protections than Malchester, as he left before the rules changed.

The argument is used (including by me) that the terms of pension schemes are just part of attracting and retaining staff. But again and again we learn on threads like this that many government employees are too dim or ignorant to know even some of the most advantageous, and therefore most expensive, rules of their schemes. It follows that those rules can't do much of a job in attracting and retaining staff. I'm glad to hear that the Rule of 85 is destined for the bin.