LGPS Deferred Pension lump sum

Tromking

kidmugsy wrote: »

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.

We both digress, but speaking personally when I opted for a job in the public sector I had a vague idea that my pension was generous but was (and still am!) ignorant of the nuts and bolts of that pension.
That mind set has sadly changed since the last set of reforms, it is now perceived widely within the public sector that the pensions on offer to new joiners are ‘nothing special’ especially if you factor in the stressful working environment and the distant retirement age.
Hence the staff retention issues bedevilling some public sector roles.

mollycat

Tromking wrote: »

We both digress, but speaking personally when I opted for a job in the public sector I had a vague idea that my pension was generous but was (and still am!) ignorant of the nuts and bolts of that pension.
That mind set has sadly changed since the last set of reforms, it is now perceived widely within the public sector that the pensions on offer to new joiners are ‘nothing special’ especially if you factor in the stressful working environment and the distant retirement age.
Hence the staff retention issues bedevilling some public sector roles.

To carry the digression a little further

I think that the idea of the public sector pensions being a huge incentive historically are somewhat overstated.

I joined the NHS in the 1980's in my mid 20's; I had applied, joined and enthusiastically started before I was made aware, (via a talk to our intake from a COHSE official), of our pension entitlements.

TBF, to someone as young as I was, the ability to retire at 55/60 instead of SPA, didn't figure too highly on my radar.

It wasn't until a decade or 2 had passed that the dawning of how much of a lucky so and so I was with regard to the freedom to retire early kicked in. (By this point I knew the terms/conditions of my 1995 section pension inside out).

Unfortunately, by that time most of us had also realised what a stressful, incompetently run, inefficient, bullying and corrupt organisation we worked for.

So, swings and roundabouts maybe

I do agree with Kidmugsy regarding the mass ignorance of public sector pension schemes by those who will eventually benefit from them. Given their simplicity (compared to the complex jobs some of their participants do), and the availability of easy to read factsheets this has always baffled me.

OP.....I,m with Silvertabby on this; it must be wrong. I don't see what else you can do about it though

Good luck whatever happens.

donny_jim

Yes that does sound good, the question then becomes, do you need the lump sum, if not would you invest it, if so how risk averse are you. Nothing is certain in life, whichever you choose has its own risk. Make a choice and accept it.

Silvertabby

kidmugsy wrote: »

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.

R85 ended for new joiners in 2006. It's gradually getting towards the stage when retirees from live service will only have R85 protections in respect of any pre 2008 service - but a lot of people who left and deferred their benefits in the 1980s/1990s will meet R85 when they reach age 60 because of the inclusion of the deferred service. Those are the rules as they stand.

You're right that many public sector workers don't appreciate the value of the pensions offered, despite all of the information available. It was part of my job to try to talk people out of opting out of the LGPS - but I very rarely succeeded because by the time they rang in to request the opt out forms, they had already mentally spent the extra money from their pay packets.

Some cracking reasons, but these were the best:

"My husband has a good pension so I don't need one as well".

"The LGPS is a rip-off - you are charging me over £100 a month, but stakeholder pensions are only £20 a month".

"It's just another council tax - and if I don't have to pay it, then I won't".

"Now that the State pension will be the same as my wages I don't need a works pension as well"
(After I'd explained what restoring the link between salaries and the State pension really meant..)
"Well, the money's better off in my pocket than the Council's".

These stick in my mind because they were all in their 20s/30s on full time contracts and decent rates of pay. I wonder what they think about opting out now!

Malchester

OP.....I,m with Silvertabby on this; it must be wrong. I don't see what else you can do about it though

. Thanks mollycat. I too think this is wrong and somehow I have been classed, wrongly, to be on firefighters pension. I have contacted WYPF again (they told me two people checked it before it was sent out, and two people have checked it already following my query of it) as I have completed and posted my form but if it really is 1:12 then my choice is different from if it is really 1:18.69. I do not want to get caught out and take max lump sum and then, they find out they are wrong and so lose significant chunk of annual pension. If the answer this time is still that their quote is correct I will leave it at that and will have two written confirmations.

xylophone

If the answer this time is still that their quote is correct I will leave it at that and will have two written confirmations.

Have you asked them to quote chapter and verse?


That is to say, can they point to the exact rule/clause/regulation/special protection etc that changes your commutation factor?

Ganga

Tromking wrote: »

We both digress, but speaking personally when I opted for a job in the public sector I had a vague idea that my pension was generous but was (and still am!) ignorant of the nuts and bolts of that pension.
That mind set has sadly changed since the last set of reforms, it is now perceived widely within the public sector that the pensions on offer to new joiners are ‘nothing special’ especially if you factor in the stressful working environment and the distant retirement age.
Hence the staff retention issues bedevilling some public sector roles.

No offence but why do you think that your job was stressfull but others in the private sector were working in a bed of roses and retiring early:rotfl::rotfl:

Peelerfart

Ganga has a point,

40 years in the private sector never was anything less than stressful and as for the distant retirement age.

Well that depends on how old you are and your scheme rules, nothing to do with public or private.

However, I apologise, off subject and not my thread.

PF

Silvertabby

Ganga wrote: »

No offence but why do you think that your job was stressfull but others in the private sector were working in a bed of roses and retiring early:rotfl::rotfl:

It depends on the job. I don't know if Mollycat was a front line medic, but a family member is. A&E in a busy inner city hospital on a Saturday night is not for the faint hearted.

As for me and Mr S - as we are now in our 60s, our enemies during our RAF service tended to be Joe Russian and Paddy IRA. Thank God the cold war never went hot, but being on live armed guard (ie, patrolling whilst carrying a loaded rifle) during a high level terrorist alert was hardly a soothing walk in the park.

Malchester

The final words to my query direct from WYPF itself:

if you are a Class C member & as you started in the scheme before March 1987 and left prior to April 1998, you have qualified for the Class C conversion rate. There is a table in their communication but I cannot post it here in a readable form.

I am a class C member (starting 1983 and leaving 1994) so am entitled to 1:18.69 commutation rate

Thanks for all help and suggestions along the way