We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide

Protected Rights

If you take a transfer value from a DB scheme, the portion of the TV relating to the GMP (what you got from contracting out of SERPS pre April 1997) is Protected Rights. Ok.

What about the transfer value in respect of service after April 1997 if the DB scheme continued to contract out with the SS2? I read somewhere that all of the post 97 service would count as Protected Rights when calculating a transfer value in this case.

This would seem a bit odd, as the PR was normally related to only the additional state pension (SS2 or SERPS) above the basic state pension and not the whole of the DB benefit.

Protected Rights are treated differently (less flexibly) than the excess part of the transfer value and so this would seem to be a disadvantage.

Any pensions technicians know the answer?

:beer:

Comments

  • EdInvestor
    EdInvestor Posts: 15,749 Forumite
    What about the transfer value in respect of service after April 1997 if the DB scheme continued to contract out with the SS2? I read somewhere that all of the post 97 service would count as Protected Rights when calculating a transfer value in this case.

    This is correct.
    This would seem a bit odd, as the PR was normally related to only the additional state pension (SS2 or SERPS) above the basic state pension and not the whole of the DB benefit.

    Indeed. Restrictions are being imposed here on no real basis.
    Protected Rights are treated differently (less flexibly) than the excess part of the transfer value and so this would seem to be a disadvantage.

    It certainly is, and for no justified reason.However,if current plans to enable PR money to be transferred to SIPPs go through, then this should no longer be a problem.

    Hopefully this should happen from October.
    Trying to keep it simple...;)
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 354.2K Banking & Borrowing
  • 254.3K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 455.3K Spending & Discounts
  • 247.2K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 603.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 178.4K Life & Family
  • 261.3K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.7K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.