Can I be forced to take my Pension

BetsyRose

Another question if I may. Does you know if self employment could as employment and what sort of proof is required?

DRS1

Maybe the OP can ask her pension scheme to do what the LGPS does and only start the GMP at 60 leaving the excess to start at 62?

If they say their systems cannot cope with it she can then say that she is prepared to sign any document they like saying she is deferring her GMP to 62.

That is assuming she has not worked out that she will be better off taking it all at 60.

BetsyRose

Sorry that was gobbledygook .

Does anyone know if self employment would count as employment and what sort of proof would be required?

DRS1

You won't thank me for this but I think the answer is no.  If you were self employed you did not qualify for SERPS and by extension would not qualify for a GMP because you could not contract out of SERPS.

You could try saying that you have not retired yet because you are still working but I don't think you can claim to be employed.

FIREDreamer

Silvertabby said:

BetsyRose said:

I really find it hard to believe that such sex discrimination can still be allowed, especially not state retirement ages are equalised.

We are getting there, but it's simply not possible to make all changes retrospective.  Cost being a major factor.
On the other hand, this wouldn't be welcomed in many cases.  Can you just imagine the fuss if, when the re-equalisation of State pension ages ruling was announced in the 1993 budget, this had been applied immediately/ retrospectively? 

Well, 17-27 years notice clearly wasn’t enough for many!

eskbanker

BetsyRose said:

Does anyone know if self employment would count as employment and what sort of proof would be required?

Surely the answer has to lie within the scheme rules, or if these are unclear, then you need to seek guidance from the administrators?  Anyone on here could make well-meaning guesses but there isn't any universal definition....

SacredStephan

To the OP: Have you asked for clarification from Willis Towers Watson re: any of your queries?

BetsyRose

I wasn't wanting to draw too much attention, they may not ask for proof.

Marcon

BetsyRose said:

I wasn't wanting to draw too much attention, they may not ask for proof.

I don't think you can have it both ways. You are up in arms because they are apparently insisting, so they already know (?how) you aren't currently employed. Seeking clarity of exactly what the rules of your scheme say isn't 'drawing attention'; it's both common sense, not to mention essential.

zagfles

Marcon said:

BetsyRose said:

I wasn't wanting to draw too much attention, they may not ask for proof.

I don't think you can have it both ways. You are up in arms because they are apparently insisting, so they already know (?how) you aren't currently employed. Seeking clarity of exactly what the rules of your scheme say isn't 'drawing attention'; it's both common sense, not to mention essential.

It's nothing to do with the rules of the scheme, it's legislation. Which is very vague, it just says "employment" with no definition. So self employment may count, it may not. Don't know as IANAL. 

Pension Schemes Act 1993

OP - try contacting your MP. Highlight the identity politics angle (ie it affects you because you're female) and I'm sure your MP will be interested. Ask them to raise a question in the house. This is a silly piece of legislation, the idea you need to be in "employment", whatever that means, to defer a pension including a GMP, is out of the ark in these days of pension freedoms. GMP equalisation won't really help as the issue is you're forced to take your entire pension early because of this. 

It'd be a simple amendment to outdated legislation. There's not really any major downsides, or costs to the treasury. Easy win for the govt. Good publicity after all the W*SPE rubbish.

They could include it in the March budget. I'm probably being a bit optimistic there.