Wife, civil partnership, co-habiting partner - pension

MallyGirl

What_time_is_it said:

Civil partnership is a great option for those who want to formally register their relationship without getting married or having a ceremony. There is a certain degree of ceremony and flowery language around the signing of the documents, and it certainly has some strange old-fashioned elements tacked onto it, but it can be done for around £100-£200 and doesn't take too long to organise. Basically, like seeing a solicitor but with some weird nods to tradition along the way!

It won't be for everyone, but well worth it in my view if you think marriage and weddings are a load of old unromantic croc.

A relative suffering from cancer has just done this to keep things simple in case of the worst case scenario happening. This now gives his wife abilities in terms of authorising medical procedures etc as well as the pension aspect. 'Next of kin' is not really a thing to rely on when quick decisions need to be made.

What_time_is_it

MallyGirl said:

What_time_is_it said:

Civil partnership is a great option for those who want to formally register their relationship without getting married or having a ceremony. There is a certain degree of ceremony and flowery language around the signing of the documents, and it certainly has some strange old-fashioned elements tacked onto it, but it can be done for around £100-£200 and doesn't take too long to organise. Basically, like seeing a solicitor but with some weird nods to tradition along the way!

It won't be for everyone, but well worth it in my view if you think marriage and weddings are a load of old unromantic croc.

A relative suffering from cancer has just done this to keep things simple in case of the worst case scenario happening. This now gives his wife abilities in terms of authorising medical procedures etc as well as the pension aspect. 'Next of kin' is not really a thing to rely on when quick decisions need to be made.

Good for them. It's a great way of keeping things simple. Especially at a time where they want to focus on more important things.

Triumph13

May I suggest April 5th as a suitably romantic date for the big occasion?

Albermarle

DullGreyGuy said:

Cobbler_tone said:

I am looking for those with experience in pensions post death for partners.
My DB scheme states 'wife or civil partner' although there is this statement...
"If you are not married or in a civil partnership, the Trustee can decide to pay some or all of this benefit to another Dependant who relies on you for financial support, such as a long-term partner"

In my situation (with a long term partner) she is not financially dependant on me, although she is fully on my beneficiary form. If we were married her financial situation would be irrelevant, so reads as though it is means tested.

In the days where we have HR policies for IVF, adoption, trans, same sex couples, shared paternity/maternity etc, it feels antiquated to only officially recognise marriage/civil partnership. We could get married but it is hardly the most romantic reason and not something we intend to do. I do know one couple who did so for exactly this reason.

Any views or case law? I have written to my employer of else it reads I am at the mercy of the Trustee. Probably best not to die!

You're lucky the trustees will even consider a long term partner, many pension schemes its simply spouse or civil partner and no one else will be considered. There are no grounds to challenge it. 

Some pensions its spouse at date of death, others its spouse at date of retirement... have seen many complaints from people who realise their ex is going to get their pension rather than their wife for the last few years. 

There are other considerations than just pension, IHT is applied differently for anything they inherit from you if they are your spouse or not.

It doesn't have to be romantic, it can be very functional. A friend got married after being with his partner for 35 years because his police pension only pays to spouses. Didnt buy anything for the day, done at the registery office with 2 friends as witnesses and to the local after without telling anyone else. Sadly it's his wife thats now been diagnosed with a terminal illness so likely he'll outlast her. 

I thought in the absence of a suitable partner, the schemes will normally pay out to dependent children, if there are any of course.
Presume they will only pay until the child reaches 18? .

Marcon

Albermarle said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Cobbler_tone said:

I am looking for those with experience in pensions post death for partners.
My DB scheme states 'wife or civil partner' although there is this statement...
"If you are not married or in a civil partnership, the Trustee can decide to pay some or all of this benefit to another Dependant who relies on you for financial support, such as a long-term partner"

In my situation (with a long term partner) she is not financially dependant on me, although she is fully on my beneficiary form. If we were married her financial situation would be irrelevant, so reads as though it is means tested.

In the days where we have HR policies for IVF, adoption, trans, same sex couples, shared paternity/maternity etc, it feels antiquated to only officially recognise marriage/civil partnership. We could get married but it is hardly the most romantic reason and not something we intend to do. I do know one couple who did so for exactly this reason.

Any views or case law? I have written to my employer of else it reads I am at the mercy of the Trustee. Probably best not to die!

You're lucky the trustees will even consider a long term partner, many pension schemes its simply spouse or civil partner and no one else will be considered. There are no grounds to challenge it. 

Some pensions its spouse at date of death, others its spouse at date of retirement... have seen many complaints from people who realise their ex is going to get their pension rather than their wife for the last few years. 

There are other considerations than just pension, IHT is applied differently for anything they inherit from you if they are your spouse or not.

It doesn't have to be romantic, it can be very functional. A friend got married after being with his partner for 35 years because his police pension only pays to spouses. Didnt buy anything for the day, done at the registery office with 2 friends as witnesses and to the local after without telling anyone else. Sadly it's his wife thats now been diagnosed with a terminal illness so likely he'll outlast her. 

I thought in the absence of a suitable partner, the schemes will normally pay out to dependent children, if there are any of course.
Presume they will only pay until the child reaches 18? .

Depends on the rules of the scheme. Many will pay beyond 18 (usually at the discretion of the trustees) if the 'child' is still in full time education or training; or has a continuing disability - in which case there may be no upper age limit at all. 

DullGreyGuy

Albermarle said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Cobbler_tone said:

I am looking for those with experience in pensions post death for partners.
My DB scheme states 'wife or civil partner' although there is this statement...
"If you are not married or in a civil partnership, the Trustee can decide to pay some or all of this benefit to another Dependant who relies on you for financial support, such as a long-term partner"

In my situation (with a long term partner) she is not financially dependant on me, although she is fully on my beneficiary form. If we were married her financial situation would be irrelevant, so reads as though it is means tested.

In the days where we have HR policies for IVF, adoption, trans, same sex couples, shared paternity/maternity etc, it feels antiquated to only officially recognise marriage/civil partnership. We could get married but it is hardly the most romantic reason and not something we intend to do. I do know one couple who did so for exactly this reason.

Any views or case law? I have written to my employer of else it reads I am at the mercy of the Trustee. Probably best not to die!

You're lucky the trustees will even consider a long term partner, many pension schemes its simply spouse or civil partner and no one else will be considered. There are no grounds to challenge it. 

Some pensions its spouse at date of death, others its spouse at date of retirement... have seen many complaints from people who realise their ex is going to get their pension rather than their wife for the last few years. 

There are other considerations than just pension, IHT is applied differently for anything they inherit from you if they are your spouse or not.

It doesn't have to be romantic, it can be very functional. A friend got married after being with his partner for 35 years because his police pension only pays to spouses. Didnt buy anything for the day, done at the registery office with 2 friends as witnesses and to the local after without telling anyone else. Sadly it's his wife thats now been diagnosed with a terminal illness so likely he'll outlast her. 

I thought in the absence of a suitable partner, the schemes will normally pay out to dependent children, if there are any of course.
Presume they will only pay until the child reaches 18? .

Depends on the scheme...

Some will payout to dependent children, could be til 18 or 21-23 if in full time education, some will give a lifetime pension if they have significant disablement, some will give a childs pension if the kid is born after the death, some the kid has to be born before the death. Some dont payout to anyone.

There is a massive range of ideas people have had on how to write pension schemes, whatever the rules the actuaries have to model to ensure the solvency of the scheme or insurer. Generally if a solvent db scheme wants to close it'll transfer its liabilities to an insurer who have to mirror the terms of the original scheme in the annuities it issues and so when doing these deals there is a lot of time spent reviewing the rules and building the model.

Marcon

DullGreyGuy said:

Albermarle said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Cobbler_tone said:

I am looking for those with experience in pensions post death for partners.
My DB scheme states 'wife or civil partner' although there is this statement...
"If you are not married or in a civil partnership, the Trustee can decide to pay some or all of this benefit to another Dependant who relies on you for financial support, such as a long-term partner"

In my situation (with a long term partner) she is not financially dependant on me, although she is fully on my beneficiary form. If we were married her financial situation would be irrelevant, so reads as though it is means tested.

In the days where we have HR policies for IVF, adoption, trans, same sex couples, shared paternity/maternity etc, it feels antiquated to only officially recognise marriage/civil partnership. We could get married but it is hardly the most romantic reason and not something we intend to do. I do know one couple who did so for exactly this reason.

Any views or case law? I have written to my employer of else it reads I am at the mercy of the Trustee. Probably best not to die!

You're lucky the trustees will even consider a long term partner, many pension schemes its simply spouse or civil partner and no one else will be considered. There are no grounds to challenge it. 

Some pensions its spouse at date of death, others its spouse at date of retirement... have seen many complaints from people who realise their ex is going to get their pension rather than their wife for the last few years. 

There are other considerations than just pension, IHT is applied differently for anything they inherit from you if they are your spouse or not.

It doesn't have to be romantic, it can be very functional. A friend got married after being with his partner for 35 years because his police pension only pays to spouses. Didnt buy anything for the day, done at the registery office with 2 friends as witnesses and to the local after without telling anyone else. Sadly it's his wife thats now been diagnosed with a terminal illness so likely he'll outlast her. 

I thought in the absence of a suitable partner, the schemes will normally pay out to dependent children, if there are any of course.
Presume they will only pay until the child reaches 18? .

Depends on the scheme...

Some will payout to dependent children, could be til 18 or 21-23 if in full time education, some will give a lifetime pension if they have significant disablement, some will give a childs pension if the kid is born after the death, some the kid has to be born before the death. Some dont payout to anyone.

There is a massive range of ideas people have had on how to write pension schemes, whatever the rules the actuaries have to model to ensure the solvency of the scheme or insurer. Generally if a solvent db scheme wants to close it'll transfer its liabilities to an insurer who have to mirror the terms of the original scheme in the annuities it issues and so when doing these deals there is a lot of time spent reviewing the rules and building the model.

Beware. Most of the discretions disappear during a buy out (insurers need as much certainty as possible in terms of knowing the liabilities they are insuring), which is perfectly legitimate but can sometimes produce nasty surprises/unforeseen consequences. 

Brie

Albermarle said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Cobbler_tone said:

I am looking for those with experience in pensions post death for partners.
My DB scheme states 'wife or civil partner' although there is this statement...
"If you are not married or in a civil partnership, the Trustee can decide to pay some or all of this benefit to another Dependant who relies on you for financial support, such as a long-term partner"

In my situation (with a long term partner) she is not financially dependant on me, although she is fully on my beneficiary form. If we were married her financial situation would be irrelevant, so reads as though it is means tested.

In the days where we have HR policies for IVF, adoption, trans, same sex couples, shared paternity/maternity etc, it feels antiquated to only officially recognise marriage/civil partnership. We could get married but it is hardly the most romantic reason and not something we intend to do. I do know one couple who did so for exactly this reason.

Any views or case law? I have written to my employer of else it reads I am at the mercy of the Trustee. Probably best not to die!

You're lucky the trustees will even consider a long term partner, many pension schemes its simply spouse or civil partner and no one else will be considered. There are no grounds to challenge it. 

Some pensions its spouse at date of death, others its spouse at date of retirement... have seen many complaints from people who realise their ex is going to get their pension rather than their wife for the last few years. 

There are other considerations than just pension, IHT is applied differently for anything they inherit from you if they are your spouse or not.

It doesn't have to be romantic, it can be very functional. A friend got married after being with his partner for 35 years because his police pension only pays to spouses. Didnt buy anything for the day, done at the registery office with 2 friends as witnesses and to the local after without telling anyone else. Sadly it's his wife thats now been diagnosed with a terminal illness so likely he'll outlast her. 

I thought in the absence of a suitable partner, the schemes will normally pay out to dependent children, if there are any of course.
Presume they will only pay until the child reaches 18? .

Some up to 25 if they are still in full time education or might be extended they have other needs.

DullGreyGuy

Marcon said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Albermarle said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Cobbler_tone said:

I am looking for those with experience in pensions post death for partners.
My DB scheme states 'wife or civil partner' although there is this statement...
"If you are not married or in a civil partnership, the Trustee can decide to pay some or all of this benefit to another Dependant who relies on you for financial support, such as a long-term partner"

In my situation (with a long term partner) she is not financially dependant on me, although she is fully on my beneficiary form. If we were married her financial situation would be irrelevant, so reads as though it is means tested.

In the days where we have HR policies for IVF, adoption, trans, same sex couples, shared paternity/maternity etc, it feels antiquated to only officially recognise marriage/civil partnership. We could get married but it is hardly the most romantic reason and not something we intend to do. I do know one couple who did so for exactly this reason.

Any views or case law? I have written to my employer of else it reads I am at the mercy of the Trustee. Probably best not to die!

You're lucky the trustees will even consider a long term partner, many pension schemes its simply spouse or civil partner and no one else will be considered. There are no grounds to challenge it. 

Some pensions its spouse at date of death, others its spouse at date of retirement... have seen many complaints from people who realise their ex is going to get their pension rather than their wife for the last few years. 

There are other considerations than just pension, IHT is applied differently for anything they inherit from you if they are your spouse or not.

It doesn't have to be romantic, it can be very functional. A friend got married after being with his partner for 35 years because his police pension only pays to spouses. Didnt buy anything for the day, done at the registery office with 2 friends as witnesses and to the local after without telling anyone else. Sadly it's his wife thats now been diagnosed with a terminal illness so likely he'll outlast her. 

I thought in the absence of a suitable partner, the schemes will normally pay out to dependent children, if there are any of course.
Presume they will only pay until the child reaches 18? .

Depends on the scheme...

Some will payout to dependent children, could be til 18 or 21-23 if in full time education, some will give a lifetime pension if they have significant disablement, some will give a childs pension if the kid is born after the death, some the kid has to be born before the death. Some dont payout to anyone.

There is a massive range of ideas people have had on how to write pension schemes, whatever the rules the actuaries have to model to ensure the solvency of the scheme or insurer. Generally if a solvent db scheme wants to close it'll transfer its liabilities to an insurer who have to mirror the terms of the original scheme in the annuities it issues and so when doing these deals there is a lot of time spent reviewing the rules and building the model.

Beware. Most of the discretions disappear during a buy out (insurers need as much certainty as possible in terms of knowing the liabilities they are insuring), which is perfectly legitimate but can sometimes produce nasty surprises/unforeseen consequences. 

It can go both ways to some degree... discretionary benefits dont automatically go, but they do tend to be codified more. So we did have annuities where it had been agreed we'd have "discretion" on if to pay unmarried partners despite the scheme but it was a series of rules like cohabiting for a minimum of 2 years etc. 

There can be some upside though, a former client was using SII assumptions for calculating commutations which are naturally far more prudent than any scheme would use and so would give higher values

Cobbler_tone

Moonwolf said:

Just for reference but also perhaps to inspire a conversation with the trustees of your own scheme.

The NHS allows unmarried partners, but only for those with service after April 1st 2008. You have to complete a nomination form which includes these details.  The PN1 is only for partners not married or in a civil partnership.

3. A nomination will only be accepted if, at the time of your death, the following conditions are met:
• NHS Pensions has received a correctly completed Partner Nomination form (PN1) signed by you and your partner.
• You and your partner have been living together in an exclusive long term relationship for at least two years.
• You and your partner have been free to marry or enter into a civil partnership for at least two years - please refer to 'Guide to relationships that are not allowed to marry in the UK'.
• You and your partner are financially interdependent i.e. you rely on your joint finances to support your standard of living, although you do not need to be contributing equally.
 • The conditions stated in the declaration section of the form are verified.
 • Your partner is financially dependent on you.

Thank you. I like the idea of a PN1. I do work for a large organisation and have a good line into the employee consultation forum and HR VP. 

It seems the only way to be sure is get married or transfer the lot out, both could be perceived as being painful 
I'm sure people get married/civil partnership for less reason!