updates on FBU, Civil service pensions

Thicko2

I agree Tromking.

Spouse benefit changes on death are also signficantly different at least in the NHS scheme.

westv

Thicko2 wrote: »

I agree Tromking.

Spouse benefit changes on death are also signficantly different at least in the NHS scheme.

And in the CS. 50% with Classic. Something like 34% with Alpha.

poggs

Scottish police federation have published the full scottish pensions agency (government) response here

https://spf.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/55.pdf

important bit "appears" to be

16. The difference in treatment will in due course be removed for all members with relevant
service across all the main public service pension schemes – not just those who have
lodged legal claims. Changes to the scheme to implement this will need to ensure that all
members can keep the pensions they have earned to date. Some members are likely to
have been better off remaining in their old scheme, while others may benefit more from the
new scheme – that will depend on the individual circumstances of affected members. Any
changes to the scheme must take account of this in order to ensure no member loses out.

Westertonbilly

Any views on how the rules of 85 fits into all of this and the option to retire at 60 without reductions to the different elements of the LGPS?

Silvertabby

Westertonbilly wrote: »

Any views on how the rules of 85 fits into all of this and the option to retire at 60 without reductions to the different elements of the LGPS?

R85 was abolished in 2006, with tapering protections for those who were already members.

Someone retiring at 60 today would only be able to qualify for R85 in respect of their pre 2008 service.

Dazed_and_confused

Changes to the scheme to implement this will need to ensure that all
members can keep the pensions they have earned to date. Some members are likely to
have been better off remaining in their old scheme, while others may benefit more from the
new scheme – that will depend on the individual circumstances of affected members. Any
changes to the scheme must take account of this in order to ensure no member loses out.

This seems a tricky circle to square as different people will have their interpretation as to what "better off" means to them.

Someone moved from an old scheme to new may have built up say £3,000 over the past five years in the new scheme with no automatic lump sum.

Would they want to swap that for say £1,600 plus automatic lump sum in the old scheme.

At face value probably not.

But the £1,600 plus lump sum could well be payable from 60, the £3,000 not until 67/68.

m_c_s

Dazed_and_confused wrote: »

This seems a tricky circle to square as different people will have their interpretation as to what "better off" means to them.


But the £1,600 plus lump sum could well be payable from 60, the £3,000 not until 67/68.

Somehow the extra CARE contributions over 5 years will have to be accounted for. This could be substantial.

GunJack

m_c_s wrote: »

Somehow the extra CARE contributions over 5 years will have to be accounted for. This could be substantial.

refund the difference between original scheme conts. and CARE conts.?? As you say, that'll be costly. Maybe count the difference towards buying some extra years service in the old scheme rather than a cash refund? Less up-front cost but potential bigger cost down the line.

It's still a waiting game...

Thicko2

I dont think refunding the increased contributions post 2015 (actually started 3/4 years earlier) would be in scope of the ruling. The reason, people with the transitional protection which is what the case is about, also paid higher contributions as well.

m_c_s

Thicko2 wrote: »

I dont think refunding the increased contributions post 2015 (actually started 3/4 years earlier) would be in scope of the ruling. The reason, people with the transitional protection which is what the case is about, also paid higher contributions as well.

Yes you are quite right the increased contributions were phased in earlier than 2015 and so will not have an impact.
My current CARE annual accrual rate is quite high and outstrips Classic FS accrual rate by some margin.
For me, 5 years away from 60, from the calculations I have done staying in CARE then actuarily reduce the CARE element at 60 to add to my earlier 26 years in the Classic FS seems to be financially beneficial by £1200 per annum.
Each year I live beyond 60 just increases the benefit due to annual uplifts on the larger pension amount.