Help I feel swindled

jennyjj

xylophone wrote: »

I'm assuming you then consulted your scheme booklet/Scheme Rules and (if appropriate) wrote to the administrator to request chapter and verse?

You assume correctly. I also consulted the CWU who laughed and said "Well we did try to warn you all about accepting the changes in 2009". ( irrelevant rubbish answer )
The reasoning was that the pre and post 2009 pensions were effectively separate and each part had to meet certain levels of pension, so I wouldn't go cap in hand to the state. Absurd, of course because both parts had to be drawn at the same time and would have been an amply considerable sum. I asked for and received quotes every six months after that, and each time I got one, so I never bothered to kick off about the initial refusal. But it did make me wary of goalposts shifting while in deferment.

xylophone

each part had to meet certain levels of pension, so I wouldn't go cap in hand to the state.

There was a problem with meeting the GMP?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/1439747/guaranteed-minimum-pension-early-retirement

jennyjj

That's right. They asserted that the post 09 part of the pension was a separate pension and that part did not meet the GMP so I couldn't take it. Patently absurd because it only had one year in operation, whereas the previous 34 years of contribution into 'the other pension' left me with an admirable total pension. Both 'pensions' had to be taken at the same time and the post 09 part blocked me taking the pre 09 part. I don't know what it took, maybe someone litigated, but the story had changed by 3 months later, so I did not pursue it further.
Goes to show how the goalposts can get moved. That's why I'm going to take it ASAP

hyubh

jennyjj wrote: »

That's right. They asserted that the post 09 part of the pension was a separate pension and that part did not meet the GMP so I couldn't take it.

That doesn't make much sense - what's GMP got to do with post-09 service?

Both 'pensions' had to be taken at the same time and the post 09 part blocked me taking the pre 09 part. I don't know what it took, maybe someone litigated, but the story had changed by 3 months later

So, the idea that the post-09 part had anything to do with covering the GMP disappeared almost as soon as it appeared...?

Goes to show how the goalposts can get moved. That's why I'm going to take it ASAP

But by your own account, you were looking to take it early years ago...? BT pensions are backed by a Crown guarantee - you can't really get any safer, short of the big unfunded public sector schemes directly paid for out of general taxation.

xylophone

They asserted that the post 09 part of the pension was a separate pension and that part did not meet the GMP

Mysterious!

https://www.btpensions.net/assets/uploads/documents/001389_BT_MemberBookletB_20.11.17_V2.0CF-14.35-no-vc.pdf

But GMP relates to pension accrued between 1978 and 1997 - after that the "Reference Scheme Test" applied to Contracted Out DB Schemes.

And according to the booklet above, from 2009 the BT Scheme contracted in to S2P.

As part of the changes made in April 2009, members
of Sections B and C of the Scheme stopped being
Contracted Out and started to build up extra S2P.

Dox

jennyjj wrote: »

That's right. They asserted that the post 09 part of the pension was a separate pension and that part did not meet the GMP so I couldn't take it. Patently absurd because it only had one year in operation, whereas the previous 34 years of contribution into 'the other pension' left me with an admirable total pension. Both 'pensions' had to be taken at the same time and the post 09 part blocked me taking the pre 09 part. I don't know what it took, maybe someone litigated, but the story had changed by 3 months later, so I did not pursue it further.
Goes to show how the goalposts can get moved. That's why I'm going to take it ASAP

Also goes to show how little people understand what's going on and invariably blame the scheme for some wrongdoing or other.

jennyjj

Agree with the last three posters. Accenture refusing to give me a quote for actuarially reduced early payment when I was over 50 ( with protected rights to draw at 50 ) was badly explained by them and badly explained by me. I hadn't heard of GMP by then. Probably wasn't GMP but some other test. All I recall was several heated debates with Accenture repeatedly telling me that it was because one part of the two part pension did not meet statutory minimums at that time. I took it to be the latter part, which was much shorter and subject to 5 more years Actuarial reduction. Anyhow, after about 2-3 months of too-ing and fro-ing by phone, they did send me my figures. I've asked for them roughly twice a year since and watched most of the actuarial reduction drop away. Now, I'm on the brink of taking it at 59 in a few months. BT do keep worrying me with their court cases, longevity insurance ploys and now closure of the scheme. That latter one rattled me.

sue139uk

xylophone: Thank you for State Pension information; I had been aware of rules about new state pension.
I had received a forecast by post.
I have just checked online through their Verify system.
I knew I had paid over 35 years of NI, as I have been working since my teenage years.
The onscreen message said:
£175.55 is the most you can get
You cannot improve your forecast any more.
Unfortunately I also realise now that my works pension will be taxable once I reach SPA. Whereas I would not have reached the threshold during the past eight years when I had no income and had been relying on my savings.

xylophone

£175.55 is the most you can get

Which is higher than a full New State Pension - this indicates that additional state pension earned during your working years was higher than the deduction that would have been made for the years you contracted out of the state pension.

Whereas I would not have reached the threshold during the past eight years when I had no income and had been relying on my savings.

But had you taken your pension at age 55 when Normal Scheme Retirement Age was 65 you would have suffered a substantial actuarial reduction- this could have been as high as 40-50% (do you know what it actually would have been?) and this would have been for life.

xylophone

with protected rights to draw at 50

You mean that you had a "protected pension age".

http://www.scottishwidows.co.uk/extranet/literature/doc/FP0465

Unwise to use "protected rights" in this context as it means something quite different in pension terms and could lead to confusion.

https://www.eversheds-sutherland.com/global/en/what/articles/index.page?ArticleID=en/Pensions/Pensions_speedbrief_Protected_rights_abolished_from_6_April_2012