Teachers' Pensions / judges and firefighters / implications?

Oliver1191

Hi all,

Anyone care to pose an educated 'best guess' as to the eventual outcome of this:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/jan/30/tax-payers-face-4bn-annual-pension-bill-after-court-ruling

In relation to the Teachers' Pension, a few questions I have...

1. Will this result in moving back to the final salary scheme in its entirety?
2. Will the retirement age change back e.g. to 60?
3. How will career average payments be converted back to the old scheme?
4. If the Government try to re-introduce career average, will it be for new scheme members only?
5. Could anyone be worse off if there are changes?
6. If there are any changes, when will these come into effect?
7. If anyone chose to leave due to the discrimination (or chose not to take additional benefits) could there potentially be a miss-selling case?

Any other thoughts you have?

Ivrytwr3

Effects Police and Military too.

No idea of the outcome, however, if we go back to the original pension terms it will cost the Government billions.

However, they should not have altered the terms in the first place. Those on the old scheme should have been offered the opportunity to move over and the new joiners should have joined on the new scheme. But no, both feet in!

JoeCrystal

It will have to wait and see. I did come across Teachers’ Pension Scheme Supplementary Estimate and the scheme administrators already made a provision of £9.5 billion to reflect the effect on past service costs due to the potential outcome in light of the ongoing McCloud and Sargeant court cases. So either the Treasury will have to top up the shortfall even further. I think it is about £3.4 billion during 2017/2018 or increase the contributions for both employers and employees.

I think that the current TPS is here to stay, ideally with declining benefits over the coming decades with each scheme changes.

m_c_s

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5975252/will-the-fire-service-pension-issue

Oliver1191

However, they should not have altered the terms in the first place. Those on the old scheme should have been offered the opportunity to move over and the new joiners should have joined on the new scheme. But no, both feet in!

Spot on! I'm not sure why they chose not to do this...seems far more sensible!

Ivrytwr3

Military pension is non-contributory, however, they have moved everyone over to the 2015 pension too.

hyubh

Ivrytwr3 wrote: »

Those on the old scheme should have been offered the opportunity to move over and the new joiners should have joined on the new scheme. But no, both feet in!

Nope, the ruling concerns the implementation of transitional protections solely based on age. 'Both feet in' (i.e. everyone move into the new schemes at the same time) would have been fine.

Ivrytwr3

That's what happened with Police/Military, if you were of a certain age, you were protected and remained on the old scheme, under a certain age you were forced over.

However, wrt Military, some had AFPS 75, in 2005, you were ASKED if you wanted to transfer to AFPS 05 (no!) but then in 2015, we were forced over unless a certain age.

No idea how this will pan out.

Silvertabby

Ivrytwr3 wrote: »

Military pension is non-contributory, however, they have moved everyone over to the 2015 pension too.

Not quite. Your salary is reduced in recognition of the 'free' pension. In my day it was 9%.

Mr_EDATD

Applicable to NHS pensions too.

I can't see them putting people back on to final salary schemes indefinitely but could they apply transitional arrangements to everyone already in an old scheme? I don't know the details of how the transitional arrangements worked but perhaps something like 2 years of being 100% in the old scheme, 2 years of 80:20 spit between old scheme and new scheme and so on until 100% in new scheme.

Oliver1191

I wonder how much of an uplift in the value of the benefit statement this will be...For some, hundreds...for others thousands?