LGPS help !!!!

Silvertabby

“ Employer's consent in these cases includes having to pay a chunk of money into the pension fund - so it rarely happens.

Crabby wrote: »

Was this the case pre 2008? If not the only thing that has changed is the arbitary raising of retirement age.

Pre 2008 the normal retirement age for the LGPS was 65, with only those who met the Rule of 85 being able to take unreduced benefits from 60. Employer consent wasn't needed for normal retirement from 60 onwards, and no additional payments were required - the R85 costs having already been factored in to the scheme budget.

Payments pre 60 (only with employer consent) were normally limited to:

Redundancy (minimum now 55). Benefits accrued to date of leaving paid without reduction, with employer picking up the tab for the difference.

Ill Health (any age). Benefits enhanced and paid unreduced. No immediate bill to the employer, but number of ill health retirements taken into account when setting the employer's future contributions.

Compassionate (minimum now 55). Could either be paid without reduction, with employer picking up the bill, or with the employee taking the full hit re early payment reductions. Depended on the circumstances of the request.

Crabby

What was the LPGS female retirement age pre 2008?

Silvertabby

Crabby wrote: »

What was the LPGS female retirement age pre 2008?

65. It's always been 65, since the scheme was created in the 1920s. (Rising to State pension age for post 2014 benefits).

I suspect that when the State pension age for women was 60, many female LGPS employees retired and took their LGPS benefits at the same time - but they would have been reduced for early payment if they didn't meet the Rule of 85.

Fubbly

Crabby wrote: »

The Logic tree for Teesside pensions suggests that pre 2008 pension is protected even if you take your pension before age of 60,



http://www.teespen.org.uk/pdf/85_year_rule.pdf


but if you read closely it is with your Employers consent.



I know one employer who won't consent, even for a 58 year old female part timer with nearly 35 years of loyal service.
So basically the 85 year rule will not be invoked for anyone who was under 60 on March 31st 2016, unless they want rid of you.

I dont think the pdf reflects the 2014 changes. It is now possible to retire and take your benefits voluntarily from 55. If you meet the rule of 85 you will have less of an actuarial reduction in (pre 2008) benefits than someone who doesn't meet it. The employee has to consent to waive or reduce it further (which will require them to make an additional payment into the fund) but cannot remove it altogether.

Crabby

The confusions where that I thought the female retirement age was 60 and that the rule of 85 kicked in when a person met it, ie; a 55 year old with 30 years service, would have no pre 2008 reductions.
This is not the case, said 55 year old will have reductions of;


22.7% on any pre 2008 pension. (5 years early (85 year rule protected)).



38.9% on 2008-2014 pension. (10 years early).



42.2% on post 2014 pension. (12 years early).


The only way to avoid them, as has been noted earlier is leaving on compasionate grounds, ill health or redundancy/efficiency. Might I also add, if the company wants rid and wants you to go quietly.

You get nothing for loyalty.



Luckily I can plug the gap, and my wife can retire anytime she wants, though the ride on the Rocky Mountaineer might have to be cancelled. :rotfl:

Silvertabby

Crabby wrote: »

The confusions where that I thought the female retirement age was 60 and that the rule of 85 kicked in when a person met it, ie; a 55 year old with 30 years service, would have no pre 2008 reductions.
This is not the case, said 55 year old will have reductions of;

22.7% on any pre 2008 pension. (5 years early (85 year rule protected)).

38.9% on 2008-2014 pension. (10 years early).

42.2% on post 2014 pension. (12 years early).

The only way to avoid them, as has been noted earlier is leaving on compasionate grounds, ill health or redundancy/efficiency. Might I also add, if the company wants rid and wants you to go quietly.

You get nothing for loyalty.

Luckily I can plug the gap, and my wife can retire anytime she wants, though the ride on the Rocky Mountaineer might have to be cancelled. :rotfl:

A very common misunderstanding back in the days when the female State pension age was 60. Many people just assumed that all pension schemes had the same retirement ages (although the LGPS scheme literature/information handbooks did say otherwise).

Probably perpetuated by the trend for female LGPS employees to retire at 60 and automatically ask for their LGPS benefits to be brought into payment as well. If they didn't meet the Rule of 85 (and most didn't - that was one of the reasons for scrapping R85, as it was deemed discriminatory on the grounds that far fewer women than men qualified for it) then their benefits would be reduced for early payment.

The options letters clearly stated the reductions, but I suspect that many women just homed in on the interesting bits - the amount of the pension and lump sum - and didn't bother reading the rest. That said, I did have a couple of interesting conversations with ladies who did read the whole letter, and who disputed the reductions 'because I'm a woman and I can retire at 60'....

AlanP_2

Just for reference the Early Retirement factors were changed on 08/01/19 to the benefit of the employee:

https://www.lgpsmember.org/more/reductions.php


Looks like different male / female factors have gone and from what I can work out males have done slightly better.