SPPA Letter McCloud Remedy

hugheskevi

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82040695#Comment_82040695

In most cases, there will also be some other minor differences, eg, in the survivor benefit due, or eligibility for survivor benefit. These could (but almost certainly won't) sway an individual to take a lower pension and lump sum.

For example, in a legacy scheme a survivor pension could be lost on spouse remarriage after member death, whereas it would not be lost on remarriage in the post 2015 scheme. A very foresighted member may consider the ability for their spouse to remarry and not lose their pension in the event they pre-decease their spouse and their spouse remarries to be so important as to justify a lower pension.

We may feel these differences are so trivial as not to be significant, but ultimately that is a member's decision about their own pension to make.

Even in circumstances where there do not appear to be any second-order differences, it is possible that isn't the case if the member were to bring a successful Contingent Decision that they would have done something else had they been in the alternative scheme, so the scheme cannot be certain that one option is strictly better than the other.

What schemes can do is to have automated checks and triggers to double-check any seemingly perverse choices to ensure that the member has not made a mistake.

horsewithnoname

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6673171/sppa-letter-mccloud-remedy

it’s not “public sector waste”, it’s the fact that the ruling was that everyone had their choice of scheme for 2015 to 2022, and for some it is not so clear cut as all schemes have different pros and cons and people have different requirements. Yes for some it will be clear cut, but then where would the cut off point be? The court says everyone gets their choice so that is what will happen.
it is the government, who were told that it would be discrimination but went ahead anyway, who caused the waste.