Any LGPS Rule of 85 Experts About?

John905

Are there any experts on the LGPS Rule of 85 here? I have had two contradictory replies from my pension provider (Strathclyde). I have been in the LGPS since March 1993, with only an 18 month break in service since then and I am currently 58 years of age. I met the rule of 85 conditions in October 2022. The first reply stated “I can confirm the rule of 85 was removed from LGPS regulations in 2009, however there is a period of protection in place for members who are not 60 before 31st March 2020. As you were under 60 on 31 March 2020 you will receive partial protection.” However, the second reply simply said that the rule of 85 did not apply since on 31 March 2020 I had not yet met the conditions. I have a nasty feeling the latter option will be correct.

bripat

Silvertabby should be able to help you , I started about the same time as you and I will get part protection for some of my yrs when I take flexible retirement in January.

Silvertabby

At your age, your R85 protections are limited to your pre 2008 accruals only.  That said, although the age for voluntarily accessing benefits has been reduced to (currently) 55, the R85 NRA remains 60.  So, if you were to voluntarily take your pension from age 58, and assuming that both of your records were combined,  your early payment reductions would be thus:

Pre 2008
NRA 60.  2 years early payment reductions.

2008 to 2015
NRA 65.  7 years early payment reductions.

2015 onwards
NRA SPA.  8/9 years early payment reductions.

But note that taking flexi retirement does complicate things if taken before age 60.  If the flexi retiree meets R85, then the employer has to pay the strain costs of paying the pre 2008 benefits (only) without any reductions.  This could amount to many £Ks, and is a common reason for refusing flexi retirement to those under 60.

When was your break in service?  If your two records weren't combined, usually because you returned on a lower salary, then may be slightly different as you may not have any R85 protections at all in respect of your second post.

John905

Thanks for the replies. My break from service was way back around 1995/96. All the service has been combined into one lump. At the moment I do not plan to retire (or flexibly retire) until I hit 60. It sounds like there could be some hope then for at least some protection. As I said, the second response simply stated that I was not eligible given that I hadn't met the rule of 85 eligibility criteria by March 2020 (I met the criteria in Oct 2022).

Silvertabby

That refers to which protection group you are in.  Someone older than you could have had sliding protections in respect of post 2008 accruals, but your age puts you firmly in the 'pre 2008 only' group.

John905

That would be great if I could even get some pre 2008 protection, as the most recent answer from Strathclyde was unequivical in stating that I wouldn't be entitled to any protection whatsoever. I have asked them to double check this, but it can take a while to receive a reply. Is there any definitive guide I can refer them to if I get a repeat of the "you're not protected at all" line?

xylophone

I notice that Greater Manchester LGPS refer members to their personal member log in for a pension estimate which takes account of the rule of 85 - have you checked the Strathclyde version?

https://www.gmpf.org.uk/members/retiring/85-year-rule

Silvertabby

Be careful - not all Scottish LGPS rules are the same as England/Wales.

Strathclyde seem to be having server problems, but found this under Tayside:

https://www.taysidepensionfund.org

Then: Rule of 85

John905

According to the Tayside information you sent Silvertabby I should definitely be eligible for pre 2008 protection. I am presuming two Scottish schemes couldn't be working to different regulations. Thanks so much for this. Time to get back in touch with Strathclyde. Xylophone - thanks for the suggestion, though I did try the Strathclyde version of the personal projection estimate. They claimed it should incorporate the Rule of 85, though the results did not indicate if this was the case or not.

Pabloh

I have been following the McCloud judgement.  In short it concluded that it was discriminatory (Against younger members) to only protect older members of a pension scheme from  changes to a scheme, In this case final salary to average.  Therefore the same should apply to the the changes that were made to the rule of 85 in the local govt pensions schemes. The same legal principal should apply. Only members of a certain age were protected. The is the same scenario as McCloud therefore it follows that younger members were discriminated against. I think a class action would rule that the protection should be reinstated for those who were in the pension scheme before the changes were made. Thoughts anyone? I'm surprised more local government workers are not questioning this? Any law firms looking to start a class action....

Silvertabby

Pabloh said:

I have been following the McCloud judgement.  In short it concluded that it was discriminatory (Against younger members) to only protect older members of a pension scheme from  changes to a scheme, In this case final salary to average.  Therefore the same should apply to the the changes that were made to the rule of 85 in the local govt pensions schemes. The same legal principal should apply. Only members of a certain age were protected. The is the same scenario as McCloud therefore it follows that younger members were discriminated against. I think a class action would rule that the protection should be reinstated for those who were in the pension scheme before the changes were made. Thoughts anyone? I'm surprised more local government workers are not questioning this? Any law firms looking to start a class action....

R85 has nothing to do with the McCloud judgement.

R85 ended for new joiners after 1 October 2006.  Those who had joined before that date received protections on a sliding scale, with said protections in respect of current retirees being limited to pre 2008 pension accruals only.

So, it wasn't an age thing, like McCloud, it was a new rules for all joiners after a certain date thing.

2006 was during my time in the LGPS, and I remember the unions were a bit snippy about this - but even they finally accepted that such measures were necessary in order to maintain the long term affordability of the scheme.