updates on FBU, Civil service pensions

stoozie1

sammyjammy wrote: »

Do you have a link?

From the Mc Clud Judgement:

'23. By Schedule 2 of the Judicial Pension Regulations, Judges who, on 31st March 2015, were members of the JPS have been affected since 1st April 2015 in the following different ways:-
a) Those who were active members of the JPS before 1st April 2012 and were born on or before 1st April 1957 have full protection and remain entitled to continuing active membership of the JPS.
b) Those who were active members of the JPS before 1st April 2012 and were born between the 2nd April 1957 and 1st September 1960 are entitled to tapering protection. They have the option of remaining active members of the JPS until their tapered protection closing date, being a
Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. Lord Chancellor v McCloud & Ors
date between 31st May 2015 and 31st January 2022, whereupon they fall to be excluded from active membership of the JPS and become entitled to membership of the NJPS (they also had the option to transfer to the NJPS on 1st April 2015).
c) Those who were active members of the JPS before 1st April 2012 but were born after 1st September 1960 are not entitled to any protection and have been excluded from active membership of the JPS since 1st April 2015 on which date they were entitled to membership of the NJPS/PPA.
24. It follows that those who fall within (c) are treated less favourably than those who fall within (a) and (b) and those who fall within (b) are treated less favourably than those who fall within (a). The determining factor of whether a person falls within (a), (b) or (c) is their date of birth i.e. their age.'

The 2022 date is the latest time that anyone is being treated more favourably on grounds of age, and therefore redress is only to this point.

Liz Truss' statement from the treasury made the same point.

hugheskevi

The 2022 date is the latest time that anyone is being treated more favourably on grounds of age, and therefore redress is only to this point.

This isn't quite true, as fully protected members (within 10 years of NPA as at 31st March 2012) remain in pre-2015 schemes beyond 2022 under existing rules.

They would be working past their NPA, but quite a few members do this, with non-trivial numbers working into their 70s.

stoozie1

hugheskevi wrote: »

This isn't quite true, as fully protected members (within 10 years of NPA as at 31st March 2012) remain in pre-2015 schemes beyond 2022 under existing rules.

They would be working past their NPA, but quite a few members do this, with non-trivial numbers working into their 70s.

Thanks for this.

I thought they had had to retire and return to be able to draw down their 1995 scheme monies?

My knowledge is only of NHS though, you are knowledgeable about the CS?

stoozie1

As there are a number of knowledgeable people on here, I wonder if any of you have any thoughts on how the Annual Allowance will be treated in the tax year in which people receive the restitution of their benefits due to the McCloud judgement?

To enforce the charges which those in receipt of the old-style schemes won't have, (due to spreading them over 7 or so tax years) would seem like a continuation of the inequality due to age which has already been deemed unlawful.

hugheskevi

Thanks for this.

I thought they had had to retire and return to be able to draw down their 1995 scheme monies?

My knowledge is only of NHS though, you are knowledgeable about the CS?

Don't know about the NHS, but I wasn't necessarily thinking about partial retirement / retire and return situations, rather where the member just continues in full-time work after Normal Pension age without touching their pension.

JCUK

FBU statement out today:

https://www.fbu.org.uk/news/2019/12/18/firefighters-win-back-pensions-blow-government

sammyjammy

and here


https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/fire-brigade-pension-fight-ends-in-victory-1-5064268

m_c_s

JCUK wrote: »

FBU statement out today:

https://www.fbu.org.uk/news/2019/12/18/firefighters-win-back-pensions-blow-government

It's somewhat pleasing to see things are moving faster than expected. One would now expect this to be flowed across all Public Sector pension schemes and those affected by the discrimination.
I have had some information through work which suggests that only general guidance will be given in the short term on which scheme to choose going forward. It is being suggested that personal estimates for comparison may not be available for quite some time (a year or more away). It is also being suggested that we may have a few years in which to make a decision.

mapleoak

m_c_s wrote: »

It's somewhat pleasing to see things are moving faster than expected. One would now expect this to be flowed across all Public Sector pension schemes and those affected by the discrimination.
I have had some information through work which suggests that only general guidance will be given in the short term on which scheme to choose going forward. It is being suggested that personal estimates for comparison may not be available for quite some time (a year or more away). It is also being suggested that we may have a few years in which to make a decision.

Now that the Government have Brexit (sort of) out of the way then perhaps they will find time to address it but I suspect what they might perceive as a "giveaway" to Public Sector workers won't be top of their list of things to do

sammyjammy

mapleoak wrote: »

Now that the Government have Brexit (sort of) out of the way then perhaps they will find time to address it but I suspect what they might perceive as a "giveaway" to Public Sector workers won't be top of their list of things to do

They don't really have much choice, if they try to delay it will cost them even more as it will just complicate things for more people as they move into retirement and that will have to be resolved (by MyCSP - god help us!)