Armed Forces contribution to State Pension

poseidon1

Silvertabby said:

Marcon said:

Oldvet said:

Whilst everyone is right in that he hasnt lost out, he merely didnt dip in (to quote an earlier poster), there are quite a few grounds for complaint here, and if wanted to take this further.

There are no grounds at all.

Oldvet said:

Firstly, I was Army, and there was no information that we were on the opt out of NI payments. It wasnt on payslips, or in any DIN or publication.  Therefore the Army at least, could be argued to have not informed its employees of this, which could amount to negligence.  Further supported by the two undermentioned issues.

On joining the Army, you are told your pension was granted for years served NOT from a contribution. The opt out is for private pension schemes that then put that money into the private pension rather than the state pension. THIS is not the case for HM Forces, as you dont pay into a pension.

You are confusing two different things. Payslips showed that you paid reduced rate NI because you were contracted out of the state additional pension (have a look at one if you still have one around).

Defined benefit schemes are always related to years of service, and the Army's scheme is DB. Defined contribution schemes are based on contributions - the clue is in the name!

Oldvet said:

ALL Armed Forces Pay Review Bodies in the last 10 years have taken into consideration that you do not contribute to a pension scheme when setting the pay levels.  Therefore it has recommended a lower rate based on the benefits of getting health care, no contribution pension etc.  So this then reinforces the argument that the NI opt out wasnt being paid into the private pension, as individuals didnt contribute to a pension scheme. Either pay reviews have been incorrect and should be revisited, or they were less than honest about the pension state.

All of the above give strong grounds to take this further.  They had a duty of care to ensure it was well known, but didnt do so. It would have been simple to put at the bottom of the Pay slips each month "top up you NI contribution to ensure you receive the full national pension".

Nothing was being paid into a private pension, because members paid reduced NI. There was usually no option to top up NI payments until quite recently, so putting that on payslips would have been hopelessly misleading.

Oldvet said:

Anyone that disagress, please do show me ANY formal publication (DIN, AIN, JSP, Army Manual etc) that contradicts me

Where's @Silvertabby when you need her...  Meanwhile have a read of https://forcespensionsociety.org/2021/12/the-relationship-between-armed-forces-pensions-and-state-pensions/

The information was always there for those who bothered to read it.  Not so much in JSPs, etc, but more in the form of leaflets and information posters.  I retired from the RAF well before 2016, so can't say for sure how the new pension details were promulgated - but I'm sure they were.

What I can say for sure is that I joined in early 1978, when the new 1975 pension was still in its infancy.  Details about that, specifically re the introduction of deferred benefits for those who left with less than 22 years service, still flooded the notice boards etc.  Yet, even now, there are over 12,000 veterans out there who haven't claimed their deferred pensions.  Many because they are unaware that they have benefits due because they didn't read the information shoved under their noses.  You can take a horse to water, etc.....

I have personally told two vets ( 1 Army, 1 RAF) that they each had 12 years of pension benefits that they should have claimed at 60.  Until then, both had believed the barrack room lawyers who had told them that their 12 year resettlement grant was in lieu of pension benefits.  Clue.  It wasn't.

My job in the RAF including issuing final discharge documents and certficates.  This included a brown envelope, with pension details as they stood at that time - ie, contracted out of SERPS, so their in-service NI contributions went towards their basic State pension, but that the equivalent of SERPS would be paid with their Service pensions.  The pension folder also advised that once their pensions were due, at age 60, they would have to contact pensions with their claim.  I would stress the importance of the contents of the pensions info pack, saying that it should be kept safe for future reference.  Back to that horse again.....

Note the point you made about leading a horse to water. However you may find the FT article below of interest ( the paywall should not be triggered ).

https://on.ft.com/41F8MKn

It appears the FT's financial literacy education charity has taken it upon themselves to provide elite trainee Marines with thorough financial literacy training in addition to their basic marine training. 

Arguably the average marine is not only physically tough but also possessed of higher than average levels of mental acuity compared to the average 'squaddie'. Nonetheless it is recognise that they (along with the rest of the population)  could certainly benefit from training in this important area.

What strikes me about FT's programme is why restrict it to army elite trainees? why not expand it to all members of the armed forces ( elite or otherwise). It remains shameful that so many ex army servicemen become over represented in the UK's homeless stats ( for various reasons ) and one wonders to what extent outcomes could be improved by the sort of training the FT is sponsoring for the Army 's elite.

As an ex service person yourself what are your thoughts?

Incidentally some of the so called 'elite' readers comments on the article seem to exhibit a quite dismaying degree of contempt for this initiative, which reflects negatively on elements of the FT's readership.

pterri

Silvertabby said:

pterri said:

Silvertabby said:

Marcon said:

Oldvet said:

Whilst everyone is right in that he hasnt lost out, he merely didnt dip in (to quote an earlier poster), there are quite a few grounds for complaint here, and if wanted to take this further.

There are no grounds at all.

Oldvet said:

Firstly, I was Army, and there was no information that we were on the opt out of NI payments. It wasnt on payslips, or in any DIN or publication.  Therefore the Army at least, could be argued to have not informed its employees of this, which could amount to negligence.  Further supported by the two undermentioned issues.

On joining the Army, you are told your pension was granted for years served NOT from a contribution. The opt out is for private pension schemes that then put that money into the private pension rather than the state pension. THIS is not the case for HM Forces, as you dont pay into a pension.

You are confusing two different things. Payslips showed that you paid reduced rate NI because you were contracted out of the state additional pension (have a look at one if you still have one around).

Defined benefit schemes are always related to years of service, and the Army's scheme is DB. Defined contribution schemes are based on contributions - the clue is in the name!

Oldvet said:

ALL Armed Forces Pay Review Bodies in the last 10 years have taken into consideration that you do not contribute to a pension scheme when setting the pay levels.  Therefore it has recommended a lower rate based on the benefits of getting health care, no contribution pension etc.  So this then reinforces the argument that the NI opt out wasnt being paid into the private pension, as individuals didnt contribute to a pension scheme. Either pay reviews have been incorrect and should be revisited, or they were less than honest about the pension state.

All of the above give strong grounds to take this further.  They had a duty of care to ensure it was well known, but didnt do so. It would have been simple to put at the bottom of the Pay slips each month "top up you NI contribution to ensure you receive the full national pension".

Nothing was being paid into a private pension, because members paid reduced NI. There was usually no option to top up NI payments until quite recently, so putting that on payslips would have been hopelessly misleading.

Oldvet said:

Anyone that disagress, please do show me ANY formal publication (DIN, AIN, JSP, Army Manual etc) that contradicts me

Where's @Silvertabby when you need her...  Meanwhile have a read of https://forcespensionsociety.org/2021/12/the-relationship-between-armed-forces-pensions-and-state-pensions/

The information was always there for those who bothered to read it.  Not so much in JSPs, etc, but more in the form of leaflets and information posters.  I retired from the RAF well before 2016, so can't say for sure how the new pension details were promulgated - but I'm sure they were.

What I can say for sure is that I joined in early 1978, when the new 1975 pension was still in its infancy.  Details about that, specifically re the introduction of deferred benefits for those who left with less than 22 years service, still flooded the notice boards etc.  Yet, even now, there are over 12,000 veterans out there who haven't claimed their deferred pensions.  Many because they are unaware that they have benefits due because they didn't read the information shoved under their noses.  You can take a horse to water, etc.....

I have personally told two vets ( 1 Army, 1 RAF) that they each had 12 years of pension benefits that they should have claimed at 60.  Until then, both had believed the barrack room lawyers who had told them that their 12 year resettlement grant was in lieu of pension benefits.  Clue.  It wasn't.

My job in the RAF including issuing final discharge documents and certficates.  This included a brown envelope, with pension details as they stood at that time - ie, contracted out of SERPS, so their in-service NI contributions went towards their basic State pension, but that the equivalent of SERPS would be paid with their Service pensions.  The pension folder also advised that once their pensions were due, at age 60, they would have to contact pensions with their claim.  I would stress the importance of the contents of the pensions info pack, saying that it should be kept safe for future reference.  Back to that horse again.....

I nearly joined the RAF as an airframes & engines technician. I went to the recruitment office in Tottenham Court Road at 16 and a half. Passed the aptitude tests but they said give it a year to see if I was still keen. Sometimes wish I did go back. 

They must have felt that you were too young to join then.  I think it was normal practice with those who had the aptitude, but perhaps would have struggled with the rigours of adult basic training.  Sadly many, like you, found other employment and didn't try again.   I was older when I joined, and never regretted it.  Mr S (aircraft electrician) and I did over 50 years between us.

I think it was exactly that. 16 and a half was the youngest you could apply I think, I pushed the forms under my dad’s nose and he signed it without really reading it! I still went into engineering, I got a mech eng degree but thing I may have been happier actually tinkering with planes. I was in the cadets and loved spending a day with the technicians. I got to clamber all over a harrier helping a technician test the cockpit systems. 

Silvertabby

poseidon1 said:

Silvertabby said:

Marcon said:

Oldvet said:

Whilst everyone is right in that he hasnt lost out, he merely didnt dip in (to quote an earlier poster), there are quite a few grounds for complaint here, and if wanted to take this further.

There are no grounds at all.

Oldvet said:

Firstly, I was Army, and there was no information that we were on the opt out of NI payments. It wasnt on payslips, or in any DIN or publication.  Therefore the Army at least, could be argued to have not informed its employees of this, which could amount to negligence.  Further supported by the two undermentioned issues.

On joining the Army, you are told your pension was granted for years served NOT from a contribution. The opt out is for private pension schemes that then put that money into the private pension rather than the state pension. THIS is not the case for HM Forces, as you dont pay into a pension.

You are confusing two different things. Payslips showed that you paid reduced rate NI because you were contracted out of the state additional pension (have a look at one if you still have one around).

Defined benefit schemes are always related to years of service, and the Army's scheme is DB. Defined contribution schemes are based on contributions - the clue is in the name!

Oldvet said:

ALL Armed Forces Pay Review Bodies in the last 10 years have taken into consideration that you do not contribute to a pension scheme when setting the pay levels.  Therefore it has recommended a lower rate based on the benefits of getting health care, no contribution pension etc.  So this then reinforces the argument that the NI opt out wasnt being paid into the private pension, as individuals didnt contribute to a pension scheme. Either pay reviews have been incorrect and should be revisited, or they were less than honest about the pension state.

All of the above give strong grounds to take this further.  They had a duty of care to ensure it was well known, but didnt do so. It would have been simple to put at the bottom of the Pay slips each month "top up you NI contribution to ensure you receive the full national pension".

Nothing was being paid into a private pension, because members paid reduced NI. There was usually no option to top up NI payments until quite recently, so putting that on payslips would have been hopelessly misleading.

Oldvet said:

Anyone that disagress, please do show me ANY formal publication (DIN, AIN, JSP, Army Manual etc) that contradicts me

Where's @Silvertabby when you need her...  Meanwhile have a read of https://forcespensionsociety.org/2021/12/the-relationship-between-armed-forces-pensions-and-state-pensions/

The information was always there for those who bothered to read it.  Not so much in JSPs, etc, but more in the form of leaflets and information posters.  I retired from the RAF well before 2016, so can't say for sure how the new pension details were promulgated - but I'm sure they were.

What I can say for sure is that I joined in early 1978, when the new 1975 pension was still in its infancy.  Details about that, specifically re the introduction of deferred benefits for those who left with less than 22 years service, still flooded the notice boards etc.  Yet, even now, there are over 12,000 veterans out there who haven't claimed their deferred pensions.  Many because they are unaware that they have benefits due because they didn't read the information shoved under their noses.  You can take a horse to water, etc.....

I have personally told two vets ( 1 Army, 1 RAF) that they each had 12 years of pension benefits that they should have claimed at 60.  Until then, both had believed the barrack room lawyers who had told them that their 12 year resettlement grant was in lieu of pension benefits.  Clue.  It wasn't.

My job in the RAF including issuing final discharge documents and certficates.  This included a brown envelope, with pension details as they stood at that time - ie, contracted out of SERPS, so their in-service NI contributions went towards their basic State pension, but that the equivalent of SERPS would be paid with their Service pensions.  The pension folder also advised that once their pensions were due, at age 60, they would have to contact pensions with their claim.  I would stress the importance of the contents of the pensions info pack, saying that it should be kept safe for future reference.  Back to that horse again.....

Note the point you made about leading a horse to water. However you may find the FT article below of interest ( the paywall should not be triggered ).

https://on.ft.com/41F8MKn

It appears the FT's financial literacy education charity has taken it upon themselves to provide elite trainee Marines with thorough financial literacy training in addition to their basic marine training. 

Arguably the average marine is not only physically tough but also possessed of higher than average levels of mental acuity compared to the average 'squaddie'. Nonetheless it is recognise that they (along with the rest of the population)  could certainly benefit from training in this important area.

What strikes me about FT's programme is why restrict it to army elite trainees? why not expand it to all members of the armed forces ( elite or otherwise). It remains shameful that so many ex army servicemen become over represented in the UK's homeless stats ( for various reasons ) and one wonders to what extent outcomes could be improved by the sort of training the FT is sponsoring for the Army 's elite.

As an ex service person yourself what are your thoughts?

Incidentally some of the so called 'elite' readers comments on the article seem to exhibit a quite dismaying degree of contempt for this initiative, which reflects negatively on elements of the FT's readership.

Interesting reading.  I served from 1978 to 2000, so things are very different now - but I expect that personal budgeting lectures are still part of basic training.  That said, my first duty unit was a trade training establishment.  There were no credit cards back then (at least for the general public!) and borrowing money meant lots of hoops to jump through.  But, once the trainees had opened bank accounts for their salaries to be paid into, they were issued cheque books.  With lots of lovely cheques in them.  To cut a long story short, OC PSF and OC Accounts each had a drawer full of confiscated cheque books, and Friday afternoons would see a parade of airmen waiting to collect one cheque for £X amount that they could cash in the camp Bank sub-branch.  Probably illegal even then....

Towards the end of my career it was the credit cards and easy loans that were the problem.  And it wasn't just the servicemen - during a welfare briefing for wives of servicemen being deployed overseas I overheard one of the SACs wives telling her mate that she was looking forward to a good spending session on the cards, when he wasn't around to moan at her. 

At the end of our service - be it just a few years or a full career - the Armed Forces offer resettlement briefings.  One version for those of us who left with immediate pensions and tax free lump sums, and another version for those who left with deferred pensions (payable at 60/65/SPA) and a few £K resettlement grant for those who had completed at least 12 years.  Both included advice on obtaining housing, be it by purchase, private rented or council housing, and other financial advice.  The briefing that my husband and I attended was just for Officers and SNCOs, and if my memory is correct we had all bought property prior to retirement.  But I do remember the lecturer saying it was so sad that so few junior ranks bothered to attend these briefings as they were the ones who needed the most help in the transition to civilian life. 

unforeseen

pterri said:

Silvertabby said:

pterri said:

Silvertabby said:

Marcon said:

Oldvet said:

Whilst everyone is right in that he hasnt lost out, he merely didnt dip in (to quote an earlier poster), there are quite a few grounds for complaint here, and if wanted to take this further.

There are no grounds at all.

Oldvet said:

Firstly, I was Army, and there was no information that we were on the opt out of NI payments. It wasnt on payslips, or in any DIN or publication.  Therefore the Army at least, could be argued to have not informed its employees of this, which could amount to negligence.  Further supported by the two undermentioned issues.

On joining the Army, you are told your pension was granted for years served NOT from a contribution. The opt out is for private pension schemes that then put that money into the private pension rather than the state pension. THIS is not the case for HM Forces, as you dont pay into a pension.

You are confusing two different things. Payslips showed that you paid reduced rate NI because you were contracted out of the state additional pension (have a look at one if you still have one around).

Defined benefit schemes are always related to years of service, and the Army's scheme is DB. Defined contribution schemes are based on contributions - the clue is in the name!

Oldvet said:

ALL Armed Forces Pay Review Bodies in the last 10 years have taken into consideration that you do not contribute to a pension scheme when setting the pay levels.  Therefore it has recommended a lower rate based on the benefits of getting health care, no contribution pension etc.  So this then reinforces the argument that the NI opt out wasnt being paid into the private pension, as individuals didnt contribute to a pension scheme. Either pay reviews have been incorrect and should be revisited, or they were less than honest about the pension state.

All of the above give strong grounds to take this further.  They had a duty of care to ensure it was well known, but didnt do so. It would have been simple to put at the bottom of the Pay slips each month "top up you NI contribution to ensure you receive the full national pension".

Nothing was being paid into a private pension, because members paid reduced NI. There was usually no option to top up NI payments until quite recently, so putting that on payslips would have been hopelessly misleading.

Oldvet said:

Anyone that disagress, please do show me ANY formal publication (DIN, AIN, JSP, Army Manual etc) that contradicts me

Where's @Silvertabby when you need her...  Meanwhile have a read of https://forcespensionsociety.org/2021/12/the-relationship-between-armed-forces-pensions-and-state-pensions/

The information was always there for those who bothered to read it.  Not so much in JSPs, etc, but more in the form of leaflets and information posters.  I retired from the RAF well before 2016, so can't say for sure how the new pension details were promulgated - but I'm sure they were.

What I can say for sure is that I joined in early 1978, when the new 1975 pension was still in its infancy.  Details about that, specifically re the introduction of deferred benefits for those who left with less than 22 years service, still flooded the notice boards etc.  Yet, even now, there are over 12,000 veterans out there who haven't claimed their deferred pensions.  Many because they are unaware that they have benefits due because they didn't read the information shoved under their noses.  You can take a horse to water, etc.....

I have personally told two vets ( 1 Army, 1 RAF) that they each had 12 years of pension benefits that they should have claimed at 60.  Until then, both had believed the barrack room lawyers who had told them that their 12 year resettlement grant was in lieu of pension benefits.  Clue.  It wasn't.

My job in the RAF including issuing final discharge documents and certficates.  This included a brown envelope, with pension details as they stood at that time - ie, contracted out of SERPS, so their in-service NI contributions went towards their basic State pension, but that the equivalent of SERPS would be paid with their Service pensions.  The pension folder also advised that once their pensions were due, at age 60, they would have to contact pensions with their claim.  I would stress the importance of the contents of the pensions info pack, saying that it should be kept safe for future reference.  Back to that horse again.....

I nearly joined the RAF as an airframes & engines technician. I went to the recruitment office in Tottenham Court Road at 16 and a half. Passed the aptitude tests but they said give it a year to see if I was still keen. Sometimes wish I did go back. 

They must have felt that you were too young to join then.  I think it was normal practice with those who had the aptitude, but perhaps would have struggled with the rigours of adult basic training.  Sadly many, like you, found other employment and didn't try again.   I was older when I joined, and never regretted it.  Mr S (aircraft electrician) and I did over 50 years between us.

I think it was exactly that. 16 and a half was the youngest you could apply I think, I pushed the forms under my dad’s nose and he signed it without really reading it! I still went into engineering, I got a mech eng degree but thing I may have been happier actually tinkering with planes. I was in the cadets and loved spending a day with the technicians. I got to clamber all over a harrier helping a technician test the cockpit systems. 

I joined the RAF when I was sixteen and three quarters as a ground radar fitter. Ended up doing 31 years.