Second Ill Heath retirement

sangie595

I see no reason to suggest that the Council is offering more than the minimum. Many councils have, in fact, moved to that position, including several of the largest ones. One must assume the OP knows what the offer is.

hyubh

sangie595 wrote: »

I see no reason to suggest that the Council is offering more than the minimum. Many councils have, in fact, moved to that position, including several of the largest ones. One must assume the OP knows what the offer is.

The OP is the person who claimed the voluntary terms are the 'bare minimum', yet with fallback compulsory terms that are even worse!

That said, if the OP genuinely does believe they pass the criteria for at least a tier 3 ill health retirement...

https://www.lgpsmember.org/tol/thinking-leaving-illhealth.php

... they should raise an application sooner rather than later with HR (not the pension fund/scheme administrator, because it's an employer not fund-level decision).

50Twuncle

lulu650 wrote: »

Yes


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

...In what way?

Since the bare minimum in VR has been offered and nobody has applied - "management" have tried to get us to apply prior to the cut off date (last week) by threatening us with less than the amount paid in VR - if they have to impose CR - which, in itself is the legal minimum - that's what I mean by "playing dirty"

50Twuncle

sangie595 wrote: »

I see no reason to suggest that the Council is offering more than the minimum. Many councils have, in fact, moved to that position, including several of the largest ones. One must assume the OP knows what the offer is.

9 weeks pay - but since I only work 10 hours per week - that's not exactly a huge amount of money !

50Twuncle

hyubh wrote: »

The OP is the person who claimed the voluntary terms are the 'bare minimum', yet with fallback compulsory terms that are even worse!

That said, if the OP genuinely does believe they pass the criteria for at least a tier 3 ill health retirement...

https://www.lgpsmember.org/tol/thinking-leaving-illhealth.php

... they should raise an application sooner rather than later with HR (not the pension fund/scheme administrator, because it's an employer not fund-level decision).

Sorry - you misread my original

What I meant was that VR was the bare minimum - but we had been told that if we failed to apply - and ended up being CR - then the amount would be less !!

hyubh

50Twuncle wrote: »

Sorry - you misread my original

What I meant was that VR was the bare minimum - but we had been told that if we failed to apply - and ended up being CR - then the amount would be less !!

I still don't get this. If VR is literally 'the bare minimum', then CR won't be less by definition (I find it inconceivable that a council would pay below the statutory minimum outside of an accidental cockup).

PS - my point about applying for an ill health retirement (and the three tiers) still stands - terms are better in the LGPS when applying from active rather than deferred, so if you are serious, don't leave it to after you have left. That said, the cost to the employer would likely factor into whether you get a redundancy (if that is what you are after) or not, so swings and roundabouts (the LGPS has relatively robust mechanisms for ensuring that employers can't get rid of older employees with a pension bung on the cheap).

Cheeky_Monkey

50Twuncle wrote: »

9 weeks pay - but since I only work 10 hours per week - that's not exactly a huge amount of money !

No it's not, but then you don't do a huge amount of work either

50Twuncle

Cheeky_Monkey wrote: »

No it's not, but then you don't do a huge amount of work either

I do at least 10 hours - what are you implying ?

Cheeky_Monkey

I'm not implying anything. I'm saying that as you only work 10 hours a week, you can't expect to get much redundancy pay.

50Twuncle

I agree - in fact - I have a quote of only £865 !
Hardly going to break the bank is it ?