Final Pension Calculation

comeandgo

HGS wrote: »

Given the situation was reported by Martin Lewis it was obviously not a one off.

I reported it to help others so this sort of guesswork is just pointless and unhelpful supposition.

Maybe if you show us where Martin Lewis reported it we can read his report and understand better.

System

HGS wrote: »

No further posts please.

Given that your posts are as clear as mud, maybe you should take your own advice!
I suspect L&G paid the £100 in the hope that you would go away.

coyrls

HGS wrote: »

Sorry you can’t understand but if you were one of the people affected and receiving the same treatment you would not need to be asking.

How would I know if I have been affected?

jamesd

coyrls wrote: »

How would I know if I have been affected?

From the information given there's no way to know without just guessing. A "zero drawdown pension" isn't a thing.

My guess is that an annuity was purchased but the annuity rate wasn't quite the correct one. So L&G made a calculation of the annuity shortfall using 20 years life expectancy and made an authorised (by pensions rules) non-drawdown lump sum payment intended to cover the difference. I assume that the poster didn't realise that lump sums aren't usually drawdown or know that the exact type of lump sum - not drawdown being particularly important - matters.

It's then understandable that the poster would object to the 20 year life expectancy and prefer a slightly higher annuity payment. Or a possibly more beneficial higher lump sum.

Our poster has declined to say enough about the situation for us to know or to know whether they were done out of getting a much higher pension income by being sold an annuity instead of being told about state pension deferral and doing that instead.

Hopefully they at least know that there's between £720 and £180 a year of extra money available by continuing to make pension contributions when retired. Assuming they aren't a higher rae tax payer, have lifetime allowance available and are not yet 75 years old.

HGS

Thanks James, a very constructive response and para 3 is correct 100%.

Clearly you don’t expect people outside the industry to know all the terminology or the legal situation, but have the insight to follow the complaint.

I did state that people affected would receive a letter so would appreciate the point I was making. Why some posters not affected feel it is their right to demand attention is beyond me but clearly too much time on their hands and needing to be important.

I did also point out that the matter was resolved to my satisfaction and that as a result I will be receiving the higher annuity payment monthly.

Add that to the refund of a lump sum in tax paid to HMC and the payment for my time and I think it was a fair complaint well made.

There is nothing to made from pointless trolling and it’s water off a ducks back.

I WILL NOT BE VISITING THIS THREAD AGAIN SO THOSE WHO WISH MAY FEEL FREE TO TALK AMONGST THEMSELVES.

IanSt

My goodness HGS does have a low opinion of people trying to help him.

Fortunately I don't think that opinion is shared by many others, and certainly not by me.

Thanks to jamesd for figuring out what was going on.