Advice on Classic CSP i'll health retirement

Dazed_and_confused

if the answers on here are correct.. why didn't they just cut to the chase and print in the guide that the maximum enhancement possible is to take you to 20 years of service and be done with it....

But that isn't true is it. Your original post stated you are going have yours enhanced to 30 years

Nobody has suggested that that is wrong.

I have been in my current post for the last twenty seven years,so fit in the category for over ten years of service with regards to the classic scheme guide, though the estimate is only offering me three years of enhancement to take me to my normal pension age of sixty (I am currently fifty seven)

Alanmac

I,m not trying to trick anyone on here and I do think you know what you are talking about....who is the embarrassment emoji aimed at as I'm certainly not embarrassed at asking pertinent questions which may help inform myself or others, or are you suggesting I should be embarrassed if so not a very welcoming induction for my first posts here........
though I still stick to my personal view that it's so nice to be offered three years, as you seem certain is the case.... for having put in 27 years of service...and I and others like the chap that got nowt 11 or so years ago having put in 25 years should feel a great honour to have chipped in for the people who have received more enhancement for less service.....
By the way many congrats to all the very knowledgeable folks on here I have seen some very eye opening stuff since arriving on this site...

Alanmac

I would like to thank all who have replied to my enquiry
i just hope that the complaint I have, which is pending with my pensions department
does in fact use the recorded conversation between myself and the professional pensions agent
whom read the scheme guide to me and said that as far as he was concerned i clearly fit into the category A part of the over ten years service enhancement.....as he interpreted it and he said the enhancement should be for eight years ...three to take me to normal scheme age of 60 and five to take me to 65.....
which has got to be good enough for me... after all he works there and deals with the C.S.P. every day as his job so has a far greater understanding than me...... :-) SMILEY HERE NOT EMBARRASSED

hyubh

Alanmac wrote: »

yes it beggars belief, the fact that if you put in anything more than 20 years service you actually get worked over, Diddled, stitched up... or whatever other terminology you choose... by a pension scheme that takes all your contributions... yet will pay better enhancement to someone who has only provided five to ten years of service...

Yes, it beggars belief you contribute diddums for pension benefits most in the private sector can only dream of.

Ill health terms are a form of insurance (and very nice ones too). Getting ill health terms isn't a right regardless of whether you are sick or not, they are to cover off the eventuality of getting sick, at whatever age.

if that had been the case it may just have afforded the scheme members the benefit of being aware and possibly choosing to take out some form of cover through another pension/Insurance scheme...just like in most eventualities these days kind of akin to the miss selling of policies.... which would be deemed to have been more beneficial to the members of said schemes to have taken out alternative policies....????

Er, no!

JoeCrystal

hyubh wrote: »

Yes, it beggars belief you contribute diddums for pension benefits most in the private sector can only dream of.

Ill health terms are a form of insurance (and very nice ones too). Getting ill health terms isn't a right regardless of whether you are sick or not, they are to cover off the eventuality of getting sick, at whatever age.

Er, no!

Hear hear!

Dazed_and_confused

who is the embarrassment emoji aimed at

I've learnt something from this thread.

The emoji I used was supposed to indicate my bemusement with something you had said. I didn't know it was an "embarrassment" emoji. Apologies.

50Twuncle

JoeCrystal wrote: »

Hear hear!

hyubh wrote: »

Yes, it beggars belief you contribute diddums for pension benefits most in the private sector can only dream of.

Ill health terms are a form of insurance (and very nice ones too). Getting ill health terms isn't a right regardless of whether you are sick or not, they are to cover off the eventuality of getting sick, at whatever age.



Er, no!

You have absolutely no idea as to the circumstances or anything else do you ?

JoeCrystal

50Twuncle wrote: »

You have absolutely no idea as to the circumstances or anything else do you ?

But we do have an excellent idea about the benefits of the public sector benefits compare to the actual cost to the employee. Ill health retirement is an outstanding deal. Indeed, if I were to fall seriously ill, I will have no choice but to keep working to keep the money coming in. The benefits system doesn't pay the bills after all.

50Twuncle

JoeCrystal wrote: »

But we do have an excellent idea about the benefits of the public sector benefits compare to the actual cost to the employee. Ill health retirement is an outstanding deal. Indeed, if I were to fall seriously ill, I will have no choice but to keep working to keep the money coming in. The benefits system doesn't pay the bills after all.

I assume that you are also aware that we lose about £50 per week from the state pension through having a contracted out pension - also the pay wasn't exactly great when I was working

Dazed_and_confused

I assume that you are also aware that we lose about £50 per week from the state pension through having a contracted out pension - also the pay wasn't exactly great when I was working

That is a half glass empty view.

The glass half full view would be that you are getting the pension you were always expecting whilst paying less National Insurance than others but now have the possibility of increasing it to £168. Win win really.