Access to Defined Benefits Pension

Sheba42

xylophone said:

If you have decided that you want to transfer the pension, why not just make an initial enquiry with eg  HL or AJ Bell  as to if they will accept the transfer and if so how to proceed?

Have you and your spouse obtained state pension forecasts?

https://www.gov.uk/check-state-pension

Do you have any other pensions?

Presumably your spouse has a pension/pensions?

What provision do they make for a widow?

Thank you Xylophone, I'm going to enquire soon as I have 2 months left to cash in this CETV. 

Yes, we both will receive full state pension. Our mortgage is paid too. 

Yes my hubby has a pension too and we're currently deciding whether to take 25% of his too. I think we probably will and buy a new car too.  I'm not too sure how his pension would provide for me, but he's just started a new job which has death in benefits scheme in place. 
 
We don't live an expensive lifestyle, so I'll be fine either way if he were to pass away and I could downsize if I really needed to.  Thank you for being respectful in your replies and not treating me like I'm some fool who doesn't know what she's doing. 
I appreciate that 😊

dunstonh

I think the OP said they were 59 and quoted a pension of £900 PA on £28k.
They would be looking at the age of 81 (with 2.5% PA applied - depends on their scheme) before getting this amount back.

The actual income figure is vague.  Its floating between £900 and £2000 over the thread and that is taking it at 59.    Off the top of my head, the NPA for the OP would be 65.  So, taking it 6 years earlier will have an reduction of about a quarter (or just under).      

It would be useful knowing the actual figures at the various points and not the vague ones given so far.

I couldn't count the number of people I know who haven't lived long enough to benefit from this long awaited pension. It's definitely many hundreds when I look back.  Not to mention the failing health that made it impossible to enjoy that money, even if they did live to 75-80. It's all downhill from 70, believe me.

You start the downhill stretch in your 30s.   However, again, you are massively underestimating life expectancy.

Ask people over 70 what they regret and they'll tell you that they wish they had done all the things they wanted to do much sooner. 

Of course you do.  That is not the same thing as spending money on a kitchen and bathroom that will probably need replacing again before you die.

Strokes, heart attacks, arthritis and many other chronic illnesses are very real and like I mentioned, almost  half of us will get cancer. 

You seem to have taken that cancer stat far too literally.  Firstly it is 1 in 2 from birth and is an assumed figure and not a proven figure.    It applied a trend and assumption to suggest that those born in 1960 will have a 1 in 2 chance over their lifetime.  

You are 59.  So, those stats from birth wont apply to you.  In the age 50-74 range, its closer to 1 in 10.
And over half diagnosed with cancer will go on to live for 10 or more years.

So, you are using statistically unlikely outcomes to make a decision.

And debilitating illnesses often mean you need more money to help you through them. Not less.

You can listen to a FA who will tell how to maximise your money to your best potential, for your so called "golden years"  or you can decide to enjoy that money while you're young enough. Each to their own.

But you are blowing what could be around 1/3rd of your income in retirement to pay for something in your pre-retirement years that has no enjoyment factor and is a temporary fix.    

Maybe if you took the income and spent it on a better quality of life, you wouldn't have to worry about cancer as much as you appear to.

I've seen enough to know what I want to do and nothing would change my mind,  as my eyes are wide open to what those golden years are like in reality, not on a sheet of paper.  

So trust me, I know the facts and ignorance is not something I allow in my life, I make informed decisions .....always.

We get you have made your mind up.   However, your eyes are very shut.
You are not relying on facts and you are not making an informed decision.

Marcon

hyubh said:

It's one of the differences between private and public sector schemes. The latter waste a lot of money sending people annual statements for pensions which are in deferment, which typically hit the bin unread, judging by some of the comments on this website!

This is wrong on multiple levels... 

Look again at what I actually said. It is completely accurate! Sending paperwork to people who don't read it is a waste of money - and trees.

Marcon said:

Private sector schemes don't generally waste money on things that most members don't value - and annual statements in deferment fall into that category.

hyubh said:
Maybe members don't so much value deferred ABSs (though do you have any evidence...?), but they certainly value and actually expect member portals, which for deferred members effectively cover the same purpose as deferred ABSs, but in a much more through going manner.



Evidence? The best part of four decades of practical experience in the industry, much of it dealing direct with members. Smaller schemes don't have these famous portals and members know and accept that without a fuss, bar the odd person who grumbles about 'their other scheme...'.

Sheba42

dunstonh said:

I think the OP said they were 59 and quoted a pension of £900 PA on £28k.
They would be looking at the age of 81 (with 2.5% PA applied - depends on their scheme) before getting this amount back.

The actual income figure is vague.  Its floating between £900 and £2000 over the thread and that is taking it at 59.    Off the top of my head, the NPA for the OP would be 65.  So, taking it 6 years earlier will have an reduction of about a quarter (or just under).      

It would be useful knowing the actual figures at the various points and not the vague ones given so far.

I couldn't count the number of people I know who haven't lived long enough to benefit from this long awaited pension. It's definitely many hundreds when I look back.  Not to mention the failing health that made it impossible to enjoy that money, even if they did live to 75-80. It's all downhill from 70, believe me.

You start the downhill stretch in your 30s.   However, again, you are massively underestimating life expectancy.

Ask people over 70 what they regret and they'll tell you that they wish they had done all the things they wanted to do much sooner. 

Of course you do.  That is not the same thing as spending money on a kitchen and bathroom that will probably need replacing again before you die.

Strokes, heart attacks, arthritis and many other chronic illnesses are very real and like I mentioned, almost  half of us will get cancer. 

You seem to have taken that cancer stat far too literally.  Firstly it is 1 in 2 from birth and is an assumed figure and not a proven figure.    It applied a trend and assumption to suggest that those born in 1960 will have a 1 in 2 chance over their lifetime.  

You are 59.  So, those stats from birth wont apply to you.  In the age 50-74 range, its closer to 1 in 10.
And over half diagnosed with cancer will go on to live for 10 or more years.

So, you are using statistically unlikely outcomes to make a decision.

And debilitating illnesses often mean you need more money to help you through them. Not less.

You can listen to a FA who will tell how to maximise your money to your best potential, for your so called "golden years"  or you can decide to enjoy that money while you're young enough. Each to their own.

But you are blowing what could be around 1/3rd of your income in retirement to pay for something in your pre-retirement years that has no enjoyment factor and is a temporary fix.    

Maybe if you took the income and spent it on a better quality of life, you wouldn't have to worry about cancer as much as you appear to.

I've seen enough to know what I want to do and nothing would change my mind,  as my eyes are wide open to what those golden years are like in reality, not on a sheet of paper.  

So trust me, I know the facts and ignorance is not something I allow in my life, I make informed decisions .....always.

We get you have made your mind up.   However, your eyes are very shut.
You are not relying on facts and you are not making an informed decision.

My eyes are wide open and we have a very nice quality of life thank you .....how rude !  

Tryinghardtosave

I don't think it is rude, just a bit matter of fact. Each person has their own priorities. Some may not think that an extra few quid a year is better than a lump sum and visa versa. 
All I know is, I wish I had started saving earlier, a lot earlier so I could have a bit more each month when I retire. 

Sheba42

Tryinghardtosave said:

I don't think it is rude, just a bit matter of fact. Each person has their own priorities. Some may not think that an extra few quid a year is better than a lump sum and visa versa. 
All I know is, I wish I had started saving earlier, a lot earlier so I could have a bit more each month when I retire. 

No that wasn't rude but telling someone they should spend their money on a better quality of life is rude and insensitive, especially when you know nothing about their circumstances or health. 

I'm sorry you didn't save early enough, it's something I've heard so many times. Money isn't akin to happiness though so don't ever forget that. Good health and good friends and family are worth millions and no amount of money can buy those 😊

dunstonh

No that wasn't rude but telling someone they should spend their money on a better quality of life is rude and insensitive, especially when you know nothing about their circumstances or health. 

It was not rude.  It was in direct response to your fixation on cancer and health where improvements in quality of life can reduce the chances of cancer.  Every single person can improve their quality of life if they had an increase in income.   e.g. stop buying processed foods.  Buy from the Butcher, Delic, greengrocer and fishmonger instead.

However, if a Kitchen is more important than your health, then that is your choice to make.

hyubh

Marcon said:

hyubh said:

It's one of the differences between private and public sector schemes. The latter waste a lot of money sending people annual statements for pensions which are in deferment, which typically hit the bin unread, judging by some of the comments on this website!

This is wrong on multiple levels... 

Look again at what I actually said. It is completely accurate! Sending paperwork to people who don't read it is a waste of money - and trees.

Ahem, you think physical mailing is the commonest way of distributing deferred ABSs nowadays...?

Marcon said:

hyubh said:
Maybe members don't so much value deferred ABSs (though do you have any evidence...?), but they certainly value and actually expect member portals, which for deferred members effectively cover the same purpose as deferred ABSs, but in a much more through going manner.


Evidence? The best part of four decades of practical experience in the industry, much of it dealing direct with members. Smaller schemes don't have these famous portals and members know and accept that without a fuss, bar the odd person who grumbles about 'their other scheme...'.

By all means tell me I'm wrong, but nothing you say gives me confidence you have any actual experience of LGPS administration over the past 20 years, or even public sector admin in general... Going in the other direction (public to private) can be a genuine eyeopener at how backward private sector DB admin can be (and it's not like public sector DB admin is futuristic).

Honestly, it's like reading the OP, determined to believe what they thought at the outset, and nothing anyone will suggest to the contrary will convince them otherwise Deferred ABSes are genuinely no big deal in LGPS land. Would they be much more so if made required in private sector DB? For sure, but for reasons that don't apply in public sector scheme admin.

Sheba42

dunstonh said:

No that wasn't rude but telling someone they should spend their money on a better quality of life is rude and insensitive, especially when you know nothing about their circumstances or health. 

It was not rude.  It was in direct response to your fixation on cancer and health where improvements in quality of life can reduce the chances of cancer.  Every single person can improve their quality of life if they had an increase in income.   e.g. stop buying processed foods.  Buy from the Butcher, Delic, greengrocer and fishmonger instead.

However, if a Kitchen is more important than your health, then that is your choice to make.

Nonsense, if you're going to get cancer you'll get it, no greengrocer is going to stop that.  I've lost 4 of the fittest people I know in the last year, one even ran marathons most years.  

Suggesting that I think a kitchen is more important than my health is even worse than your previous comment. 

Therefore I'd rather not speak to you. 

ian16527

Sheba42 said:

xylophone said:

If you have decided that you want to transfer the pension, why not just make an initial enquiry with eg  HL or AJ Bell  as to if they will accept the transfer and if so how to proceed?

Have you and your spouse obtained state pension forecasts?

https://www.gov.uk/check-state-pension

Do you have any other pensions?

Presumably your spouse has a pension/pensions?

What provision do they make for a widow?

Thank you Xylophone, I'm going to enquire soon as I have 2 months left to cash in this CETV. 

Don't wait too long as 2 months when dealing with pension companies is not a long timescale.