updates on FBU, Civil service pensions

m_c_s

Dazed_and_confused wrote: »

Not if you actually leave the pension scheme it wont.

Some people are savvy enough to leave and later rejoin. Which means they are a deferred pensioner for the purposes of their Classic pension.

Can have two advantages, locks in a temporarily high "final salary" value and then gets inflation increases not pay rise increase

But in this case they may not be part of the ruling since they voluntarily left the old pension scheme. Many of us felt it wholly unfair to allow age related transitional arrangements at the time and indeed some of the more legally aware of my colleagues and union staff briefed us on a likely discrimination case. On that basis people stayed in the old scheme and accepted the rolling over into the new one.
I cannot see any basis for those that left the old scheme voluntarily being able to claim compensation unless a separate ruling is made or they are moved back to the same position before they made the decision.

stoozie1

Trying_to_be_good wrote: »

Re the tax position of the changes to be implemented

I was part of the team in the Inland Revenue that wrote the tax legislation to ensure that those who were victims of the mid-selling of personal pensions were put back in the same tax position as if they’d not left their occupational scheme.

I think that’ll be the precedent followed.

Thanks for this. Amazing what experience the posters on here have! :beer:

Can I ask, would that not lead to a further inequity to those already discriminated against?

For example, my DH began contributing to a SIPP in order to compensate for the loss of benefits in moving to the 2015 scheme. When he receives his retrospective enhanced benefits due to McCloud judgement, he'll then be penalised due to having used up more of his Annual Allowance. But this was a direct result of being ported into the (now deemed discriminatory) scheme.

tigerspill

Dazed_and_confused wrote: »

I don't think there is an easy answer to this, it would likely depend on each individual's personal circumstances and their view on having more lump sum etc.

For example if you opted (assuming the resolution is going to be a choice) back into Classic then by April 2020 you would have got an extra 5 years in Classic. This could be taken at 60 alongside the extra lump sum that would be due.

If you opted to stay on Alpha you would have a significantly higher pension for those 5 years but without a lump sum and not payable till 67/68.

So for many the obvious choice would be to move back to Classic as the pension is payable from 60.

But Classic is only building up 1.25%/year (1/80th). Whilst Alpha is nearly double at 2.32%.

So a third option might be to stay in Alpha but take that at 60 and even with the actuarial reduction the annual pension may actually be more than moving back into Classic.

You would have to weigh up if the extra accrued under Alpha is better for you or if converting this to Classic, which has the lump sum as well, is better.

Time to fire up your calculator

Is there another element here as well?
I believe that in some of these pensions (e.g. TPS), there was an increase in employee contributions. If rolling back to the old pension, would these be refunded?

GunJack

tigerspill wrote: »

Is there another element here as well?
I believe that in some of these pensions (e.g. TPS), there was an increase in employee contributions. If rolling back to the old pension, would these be refunded?

this came up earlier...and I put forward a couple of possibilities, like the extra contributions paid could buy additional service in the old scheme, or refunds. Truth is no-one knows as yet what'll happen.

Lokolo

Sorry I thought I would keep it to one thread. My father is a firefighter and has asked me to look into it.

He currently is early 50s (52 in March). With 20 years service. And doesn't want/think he can last until 25 years service.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/129/schedule/2/made

As I understand it from the 1992 legislation he should be given the short service award (B2) when reaching 55 (as he is station rank and lower).

He would then be entitled to schedule II part II award, I don't know his salary, guessing 25k, and based on a total of 23 years service.

He would get (25 * 20 / 60) + (2 * 25 * 3 / 60) = 10.8k.

However, if he works until 57, and gets 25 years he would get schedule II part I

(25 * 30 / 60) + (2 * 25 * 0 / 60) = 12.5k

Can anyone confirm that my calculation methods are correct?

I am trying to figure out pensionable salary (A in the calculation in the legislation), is this final salary?

Trying_to_be_good

Final salary is only pensionable elements, I don’t know for fire fighters if any shift allowances etc are pensionable - assuming he’s in the union they’d be best placed to answer, or check his latest Annual Benefit Statement.

Trying_to_be_good

This restitution is all about treating people fairly. If those who were given transitional protection also paid higher contributions (as is the case for Civil Servants in the old Classic scheme), there is no logic to refund the higher contributions as you’d need to pay them anyway for the Classic benefits.

So no refund of higher contributions.

bioboybill

I'm in the LGPS. I have been in the scheme since October 1985 and I am 57 years old. If I have understood this right I am one of those who has been discriminated against, since I was moved to the CARE scheme in 2014 with no protection. Prior to that I have 23 years service in the Final Salary 1/80 scheme which also had a 3/80 lump sum. In 2008 that was changed to a Final Salary 1/60 scheme with no lump sum. Am I right in thinking that I would be offered a move back to the 1/60 scheme until 2022, or at least told which scheme would be better for me? And would my service up to 2022 have a NRA of 65?

Also, would the 85 year rule now apply to service beyond 2008? It currently only applies to my service up to 2008.

JoeCrystal

bioboybill wrote: »

I'm in the LGPS. I have been in the scheme since October 1985 and I am 57 years old. If I have understood this right I am one of those who has been discriminated against, since I was moved to the CARE scheme in 2014 with no protection. Prior to that I have 23 years service in the Final Salary 1/80 scheme which also had a 3/80 lump sum. In 2008 that was changed to a Final Salary 1/60 scheme with no lump sum. Am I right in thinking that I would be offered a move back to the 1/60 scheme until 2022, or at least told which scheme would be better for me? And would my service up to 2022 have a NRA of 65?

Also, would the 85 year rule now apply to service beyond 2008? It currently only applies to my service up to 2008.

We really don't know the answers to your question yet. Once there is an actual proposal for each scheme and likely have to be agreed with the unions potentially, then we might know. Either way, it got a feeling it might take a long while to process everyone who has been affected by this scheme.

m_c_s

bioboybill wrote: »

I'm in the LGPS. I have been in the scheme since October 1985 and I am 57 years old. If I have understood this right I am one of those who has been discriminated against, since I was moved to the CARE scheme in 2014 with no protection. Prior to that I have 23 years service in the Final Salary 1/80 scheme which also had a 3/80 lump sum. In 2008 that was changed to a Final Salary 1/60 scheme with no lump sum. Am I right in thinking that I would be offered a move back to the 1/60 scheme until 2022, or at least told which scheme would be better for me? And would my service up to 2022 have a NRA of 65?

Also, would the 85 year rule now apply to service beyond 2008? It currently only applies to my service up to 2008.

The principle that no one will be worse off has been accepted by all parties so it is likely you will have the option to return back to your pre 2014 scheme or stay on the current one, i.e. which ever one is better for you personally