Kodak lump sum payments

whitehound

My mother worked for the Kodak offices at Rayners Lane in north London in the 1970s. When she left, she opted to take her pension in two parts: half to be paid as a regular pension, and half to be held back as a lump sum to be paid to me when she died, as she has now done. I doubt if any paperwork has survived as this was 40 years ago and we've moved house multiple times since, but I don't think there is any doubt that this was true, as she told me over and over, for 40 years, not to forget that that money was waiting for me. It was £1,400 in the late 1970s, so if it's kept pace with inflation it's probably about £6,000 now.

Although I do not have the original paperwork, and doubt if it is anywhere in my mother's papers after all this time, I have all her details from the time, her pension number and so on, so if this fund still exists it should be easy to match my mother's details up with Kodak's own records.

However, both Aeon Hewitt and Reassure, the two companies who administered the monthly-payment part of the pension, deny all knowledge of any such lump sums. My mother can hardly have been the only employee who chose that option, so there must be other families in the same position. Does anyone know what happened to these lump sums, whether the funding for them still exists and if so who administers them?

I have contacted numerous firms associated with Kodak, the Kodak helpline in the US and the government's pensions ombudsman and tracing services, without any success.

roddydogs

Im a Kodak pensioner, never heard of this. Only option I had I think was a larger lump sum/smaller pension option.

Silvertabby

Is it possible that the pension had a guarantee period - usually 5 years - so if the pensioner died within that period there would be a one-off lump sum payable to their nominated beneficiary?

Brynsam

whitehound wrote: »

.... I don't think there is any doubt that this was true, as she told me over and over, for 40 years, not to forget that that money was waiting for me.

The fact that your mum repeated something many times doesn't, unfortunately, make it accurate. In the absence of any paperwork,the likelihood of confirming this is next to nil.

It's a very odd provision for a UK scheme. Have you contacted TPAS (https://www.pensionsadvisoryservice.org.uk) to see if they can help, perhaps by asking for a copy of the rules governing the scheme at the time to see if this really was an option in the way your mum described it?

AnotherJoe

It sounds highly unlikely to me i think the most likely option is as in post 3 by silvertabby.


Also see, via Google, that in 2012 or so, Kodak pensioners voted to accept a new pension deal, rather as Tata employees have now. Such a deal would likely have reset any such provision even if it existed.



Many people are confused about the pension options and your mother wouldnt be the first to misunderstand the options and outcome.

Dox

OP - do you have the exact name of the Kodak pension scheme to which your mother belonged? What you are describing sounds vaguely akin to something the Civil Service Pension Scheme (and some other public sector schemes) offers called 'allocation'.

Does that ring any private sector bells with anyone reading this thread, possibly those in the older age bracket who were working in pensions while the regime of the 1970s was current, or at least a recent memory(!)?

whitehound

I don't think it's likely she would have opted for a scheme which reduced her lifetime pension in favour of a lump sum if she died within five years, given that she was 50 and in excellent health. If she did it must not have been properly explained to her.

whitehound

I don't have the name of it, unfortunately - I was only a teenager at the time. It was just the Kodak pension scheme, as it then existed, as far as I know.

Malthusian

whitehound wrote: »

I don't think it's likely she would have opted for a scheme which reduced her lifetime pension in favour of a lump sum if she died within five years, given that she was 50 and in excellent health.

If it is the kind of pension SilverTabby is describing, the guarantee would have reduced her pension by virtually nothing. Most people opt for it, regardless of age and health, as it is all but free and provides peace of mind that the insurer won't get the whole lot if you go under a bus.

Silvertabby

Dox wrote: »

OP - do you have the exact name of the Kodak pension scheme to which your mother belonged? What you are describing sounds vaguely akin to something the Civil Service Pension Scheme (and some other public sector schemes) offers called 'allocation'.

Does that ring any private sector bells with anyone reading this thread, possibly those in the older age bracket who were working in pensions while the regime of the 1970s was current, or at least a recent memory(!)?

Pension allocation, when available, would be applied at the point of retirement and was only in respect of a spouse or a financially dependant child. It was paid in the form of an actual pension, and at the same time - but OP specifically mentioned a lump sum payable on his mum's death.


Unless a 1970s Kodak pensioner pops up with a copy of the regulations, then I'm afraid we may be stumped.


I can say, however, that the one-off lump sum death grant - paid to a nominated beneficiary of a pensioner who dies either before retirement or after retirement but within the guarantee period - is often misunderstood.


The LGPS, for example, asks pension members to complete nomination forms for payment of the lump sum death grant and explains under what circumstances it may be paid. Time and time again, family members have rung in to advise of a pensioners death and to request payment of the death grant 'because mum/dad had nominated them to get their lump sum and pension. It was sometimes very difficult to explain to a grieving relative that there was no money due.

Brynsam

whitehound wrote: »

I don't think it's likely she would have opted for a scheme which reduced her lifetime pension in favour of a lump sum if she died within five years, given that she was 50 and in excellent health. If she did it must not have been properly explained to her.

The five year guarantee would almost certainly have been written in to the scheme rules, so automatic.

It does sound as if your mum might simply have misunderstood - but (and sorry if this sounds intrusive) did you for some reason depend on her financially during the whole of her lifetime (i.e. once you became an adult)?