Second Ill Heath retirement

50Twuncle

Is there anything to stop someone from claiming ill health retirement for a second time from a job ?
I was offered ill heath retirement from a higher level job - 9 years ago and found another lower level job (totally different field / employer) after a few months - however my health has now deteriorated further and I am looking at ill health retirement from this job !!
Is there any reason why I should not claim for a second time - as long as I satisfy all of the criteria needed ?

sangie595

By ill health retirement, I assume you mean that your employer has some form of policy or pension rights that enable you to draw down a payment or income? If so, then it is entirely up to the terms of the schemes. These days a lot of schemes will only pay out, for example, if you can do no work at all - so the first policy you described probably wouldn't have paid out in many circumstances.

If you mean this is just a straightforward dismissal on medical/ capability grounds, then yes - it can happen as many times as appropriate.

If it's the former circumstance, I'd recommend that you check the conditions on BOTH policies before making any decisions, as you could cause yourself problems if you don't.

50Twuncle

sangie595 wrote: »

By ill health retirement, I assume you mean that your employer has some form of policy or pension rights that enable you to draw down a payment or income? If so, then it is entirely up to the terms of the schemes. These days a lot of schemes will only pay out, for example, if you can do no work at all - so the first policy you described probably wouldn't have paid out in many circumstances.

If you mean this is just a straightforward dismissal on medical/ capability grounds, then yes - it can happen as many times as appropriate.

If it's the former circumstance, I'd recommend that you check the conditions on BOTH policies before making any decisions, as you could cause yourself problems if you don't.

My former employer was Civil Service - I went at age 47 (with 30 years servicce) on medical retirement on a Classic pension - which, appears to only limit re-employment (and presumably re-pension) from employment covered by CSP schemes - my "new" employer is local government run scheme
So it seems OK

I have emailed CSP to check though
and, obviously will let my "new" employer know

50Twuncle

Could someone please explain to me exactly what protection a disabled person has against being made redundant ?
According to https://www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk/en/articles/early-retirement-because-of-illness-or-disability
it says that "Anti-discrimination laws mean you!!!8217;re protected if you!!!8217;re disabled or have certain health conditions." but does this mean that if I refuse to accept redundancy - there is nothing that my employer can do ?
Because my Staff Reports are faultless - I am just limited on what work I can do !!

NYM

I don't know if this will help explain... but worth a read

Redundancy - Disability

sangie595

50Twuncle wrote: »

Could someone please explain to me exactly what protection a disabled person has against being made redundant ?
According to https://www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk/en/articles/early-retirement-because-of-illness-or-disability
it says that "Anti-discrimination laws mean you!!!8217;re protected if you!!!8217;re disabled or have certain health conditions." but does this mean that if I refuse to accept redundancy - there is nothing that my employer can do ?
Because my Staff Reports are faultless - I am just limited on what work I can do !!

I just love it when people who have no idea what they are talking about pontificate on official websites. This is balderdash. Starting off with there are no such protections. If you have a disability then the employer must consider reasonable adjustments to your job. That's it. Nothing to do with redundancy at all. And that would be because JOBS area made redundant, not people! So if your job is redundant, then you can refuse as long as you like - you'll still be dismissed!

The bottom line is that if you cannot do the job that you are employer to do, that is a capability issue. You are not capable of doing the work. If you have a disability then the employer must consider if they can make adjustments or offer alternative employment. If they can't, they can dismiss. If alternative employment is considered, it does not have to be on your existing hours or pay - just that it is work that you can do.

The local government scheme is more restrictive than the CS one was. Not sure what that one is like now. If you have union membership I'd recommend talking to them. Because the criteria are usually that there is no work you could do - as in any work at all, for any employer; you'd need to be unemployable. If you could find a job they often won't pay out. So you'd be best having knowledgeable representation about the scheme and the conditions.

50Twuncle

Can an employer offer less for compulsory redundancy than for voluntary redundancy?

We have been told that this may happen if they don't get the numbers volunteering to save ths required amount of money ?
The thing is that they are only offering the bare minimum in voluntary - so nobody has applied and the two weeks expires tomorrow !

I believe that my employer is playing dirty!

lulu650

50Twuncle wrote: »

Can an employer offer less for compulsory redundancy than for voluntary redundancy?

Yes

50Twuncle wrote: »

....The thing is that they are only offering the bare minimum in voluntary....

What does this mean? If it's the statutory minimum then your company cannot pay any less

50Twuncle wrote: »

I believe that my employer is playing dirty!

...In what way?

sangie595

If I'm understanding your question correctly, then it would be best practice to offer redundancy to people who want to volunteer if that is possible, but there is no reason for them to have to offer any enhancements. It simply means that they can let go those who don't want to stay. I'm not seeing anything wrong in that.

lisyloo

Can an employer offer less for compulsory redundancy than for voluntary redundancy?

As long as the compulsory meets statutory minimums then yes, in fact it's often done to entice people to volunteer which is a bit nicer for everyone than making people lose their jobs.

The thing is that they are only offering the bare minimum in voluntary - so nobody has applied and the two weeks expires tomorrow !

How can compulsorary be less if the voluntry is the bare minimum?


If they don't make it attractive then they are less likely to get volunteers but otherwise nothing untoward.


Sounds like they are being a bit tight but nothing dirty.

hyubh

50Twuncle wrote: »

My former employer was Civil Service - I went at age 47 (with 30 years servicce) on medical retirement on a Classic pension - which, appears to only limit re-employment (and presumably re-pension) from employment covered by CSP schemes - my "new" employer is local government run scheme
So it seems OK

I have emailed CSP to check though
and, obviously will let my "new" employer know

The ill health provisions of the two schemes are completely independent of each other. That said, one difference is that the LGPS has three 'tiers' of ill health retirement where the (P)CSPS has (had) only two. On one level this makes it formally 'easier' to get an ill health retirement in the LGPS, on the other being granted a tier 3 ill health retirement means you could in principle revert back to being a deferred member if your health improves.

Whether, as sangie595 suggests, ill health retirements are nevertheless tougher to get in the LGPS or not won't be due to scheme rules, but the funded nature of the scheme which means there is a financial incentive for the employer not to grant them willy-nilly (while ill health retirements aren't a direct cost to the employer even in the LGPS, a disproportionate award of ill health retirements will usually impact the employer's contribution rate at the next valuation). By the way - from a council taxpayer POV, this isn't a bad thing!

50Twuncle wrote: »

Can an employer offer less for compulsory redundancy than for voluntary redundancy?

Of course, assuming the compulsory terms meet the statutory minimum

We have been told that this may happen if they don't get the numbers volunteering to save ths required amount of money ?

Good stuff, hopefully the council isn't chucking taxpayers' cash at the wall unnecessarily

The thing is that they are only offering the bare minimum in voluntary

Very much doubt this. (Are you a lifetime public sector employee perchance...?)

I believe that my employer is playing dirty!

Says someone looking to claim for a second ill health retirement to avoid a bog standard compulsory redundancy

PS - do you realise that if you are made redundant age 55 or over, then under the rules of the LGPS there will very likely be a compulsory early retirement with the employer having to pay a capital sum to the pension fund to avoid an actuarial reduction...? In other words, it may be case that you don't need to argue for an ill health retirement in the first place.