National Insurance years for pension

Brandee2024

I've been keeping a check on when I need to pay missing years, was at 34 years had 1 year to go!! Now apparently? I have 2 years to go to get full pension?? Have they extended the amount of years needed in line with the extended year to claim? why are they not stating your years that are complete?

Sarahspangles

Brandee2024 said:

I've been keeping a check on when I need to pay missing years, was at 34 years had 1 year to go!! Now apparently? I have 2 years to go to get full pension?? Have they extended the amount of years needed in line with the extended year to claim? why are they not stating your years that are complete?

35 years only applies to people who started building up their NI contributions after 2016. Occasionally for older people, it is 35 years they need, but that’s a coincidence. Some people have needed 49 years if they also had particular types of personal pension

If you want someone to check, you need to access your online Pension Forecast and feedback what this says, particularly whether it says your 2023-24 contributions are taken into account (these take time to update).

SevenOfNine

Apart from Saraspangles advice, on Martin's show the other day, he explained it was more precisely 35'ish years. Emphasising the "ish".

He did make it clear that if you'd missed even a single WEEK, the whole year would not count! So for as little as paying £16 you could fill that gap & complete that year. It will be indicated, so get your payment records.

Can't recall exactly what it would say, just not the same as the fully paid years.  See if you can find the show.

molerat

Your forecast has always shown how many years you needed to reach the full amount.  The only way the number of years required could increase - or more precisely not decrease by the number of years you purchased - would be if you had topped up pre 2016 years. And as others have said 35 years is of no relevance to anyone not born this century.

pinnks

A purely hypothetical example, lol.

If you were born in tax year 1958/59, then your first NI year is 1974/75.  That means that at 5 April 2016 you could have had 42 years.  If you were contracted out for a good proportion of those, only 30 of them would ever have counted for the old state pension, and for your starting amount at 6 April 2016. 

You'll reach pension age in 2024/25, i.e. this year and your final NI year for pension purposes was 2023/24.  That is 8 years under the new rules, making 50 years in total and you won't actually get a full new state pension, as you run out of time to increase your starting amount (equal to the old max basic pension) to the new maximum - you end up about £1 per week short.

So, 50 years on your NI record and £1 short of the max BUT you have gained 8 x £328.64 = £2,629.12 per year more state pension than you would have received had the rules not changed - I think that make you a winner under the new rules!

german_keeper

SevenOfNine said:

Apart from Saraspangles advice, on Martin's show the other day, he explained it was more precisely 35'ish years. Emphasising the "ish".

He did make it clear that if you'd missed even a single WEEK, the whole year would not count! So for as little as paying £16 you could fill that gap & complete that year. It will be indicated, so get your payment records.

Can't recall exactly what it would say, just not the same as the fully paid years.  See if you can find the show.

To be honest I'm not sure Martin Lewis is helping the confusion with his continued "35ish" figure. To me that would be 34, 36, maybe 33, 37. I certainly wouldn't describe 29 - 50 (or whatever the range is that we have seen) as 35ish. If we weren't talking about full years I might even start thinking about 34.9 or 35.1 as being 35ish.   

Furthermore, unless I am mistaken, for the people this particular message is aimed at 35 is completely irrelevant. I think I would start by saying "unless you are under 25 ignore the much peddled 35 year figure. You have to get your own pension forecast and that will tell you your personal details; if it happens to be 35 that is just coincidental".

By using the term 35ish he is actually suggesting that 35 years still has a deal of importance in this situation.

pinnks

I agree. 

Apart from about 1 person, the only people I have seen who need 35 years at the moment are those who had a few UK years, went abroad in their early 20s, and now want to pay 2006/07 onwards.  They tend to have little or no COPE and little or no SERPS, so the new rules apply at April 2016 and they do end up needing 35 years(ish) (or 34 or 36).  But that is a quite niche population really and not what ML is aiming his entertainment at.

german_keeper

A further thought, I wonder if DWP/HMRC have received any calls along the lines of you are telling me I need 50 years but Martin Lewis is telling me I need 35ish and he knows what he is talking about.

jem16

SevenOfNine said:

He did make it clear that if you'd missed even a single WEEK, the whole year would not count! So for as little as paying £16 you could fill that gap & complete that year. It will be indicated, so get your payment records.

That’s not necessarily true. I worked from April to December one year and it was still a full qualifying year. What mattered was that I’d earned at least the Lower Earnings Limit. 

pinnks

jem16 said:

SevenOfNine said:

He did make it clear that if you'd missed even a single WEEK, the whole year would not count! So for as little as paying £16 you could fill that gap & complete that year. It will be indicated, so get your payment records.

That’s not necessarily true. I worked from April to December one year and it was still a full qualifying year. What mattered was that I’d earned at least the Lower Earnings Limit. 

Indeed.  I get what he was trying to say, i.e. a year doesn't count unless you have paid sufficient NI but when you think about it this is another ludicrous comment from Mr. L - wouldn't be the first time - as it does not reflect the real world for anyone who pays class 1 or 3 NI.

If you are working and earning above the lower earnings limit, then you pay NI for that "week" and, so far as your earnings do not exceed the upper earnings limit, every penny of NI you pay goes towards making the year qualify.  e.g. I retired from work on 15 April 20XX and the NI I paid in that final working month accounted for the best part of "26 weeks", leaving me about 26 weeks to pay under class 3.  So, by the end of May, one could have a full NI year and do nothing for the rest of the year, so what relevance does "missing a week" have to anything?

Also, if one earns below the LEL but above an acronym I have forgotten, i.e. £123 to £241 per week, one is treated as paying NI at 0% rate, so gets a qualifying week.  It would seem to be quite difficult, if not impossible to "miss even a single week" unless your pay flip-flops around £123 per week, or you are earning below £241 per week and have a gap of at least a week during the year when you were not working and also did not earn more than £241 in any other week
. 

Sarahspangles

I think it’s simply that you can be a week short of reaching the minimum, and a small payment is sufficient to resolve this and make the year qualify