Any LGPS Rule of 85 Experts About?

hyubh

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....

The same legal principle did apply - the rule of 85 was removed because the rule of 85 itself was deemed age discriminatory by the High Court...

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/1166/pdfs/uksiem_20071166_en.pdf (top of p.2)

hyubh

Silvertabby said:

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.

The Coalition government were warned that the protections asked by the unions in 2013 would be ruled age discriminatory given the rule of 85 precedent, the government implemented them regardless, after which those same unions took the government to court claiming age discrimination...!

Pabloh

All they needed to do was alter the rule to a years of service only based alternative. I fail to see how it wasn't affordable to continue it. Local authorities have just been given ' a pension windfall' payment contributions reduction because the pension scheme is in such a healthy position. That's a whole other argument. Yes McCloud wasn't concerned with rule of 85. The legal principal still applies. You can't just maintain benefits for older members only, that's discrimination for younger members.

hyubh

Pabloh said:

All they needed to do was alter the rule to a years of service only based alternative.

That's what preceded the 85 year rule...

I fail to see how it wasn't affordable to continue it.

This would seem to imply local government employees and school support workers should have a special right to retire at 60. To which I might respond, someone who works on a checkout at Tesco is no less worthy than someone else who works as a teaching assistant at their local primary school...

Local authorities have just been given ' a pension windfall' payment contributions reduction because the pension scheme is in such a healthy position.

Go look up how much your local council is paying in pension contributions, compare to their contribution rate when the 85 year rule was removed for new joiners in 2006, and get back to me... (It will be at least double, maybe triple.)

The legal principal still applies.

Indeed - hence why the rule of 85 was removed, to avoid failing to a legal challenge. 

You can't just maintain benefits for older members only, that's discrimination for younger members.

Clearly false in the extremely broad way you intend, otherwise no DB scheme could be altered ever...!

Pabloh

I received a reply from my pension scheme to say"I can appreciate the content of your e mail and can fully understand the parallels you have drawn (in linking the McCloud judgement to the rule of 85 changes). However, they want on to say that there was no plans for review without government intervention.

Silvertabby

Pabloh said:

I received a reply from my pension scheme to say"I can appreciate the content of your e mail and can fully understand the parallels you have drawn (in linking the McCloud judgement to the rule of 85 changes). However, they want on to say that there was no plans for review without government intervention.

R85, which ceased for new entrants from 2006, isn't covered by McCloud.  Sliding protections were set in place for those who joined before October 2006 but, In the case of those yet to reach NRA, these protections will only apply to pre 2008 benefits.