Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • 50Twuncle
    • By 50Twuncle 30th Jun 18, 9:53 AM
    • 8,662Posts
    • 2,059Thanks
    50Twuncle
    Second Ill Heath retirement
    • #1
    • 30th Jun 18, 9:53 AM
    Second Ill Heath retirement 30th Jun 18 at 9:53 AM
    Is there anything to stop someone from claiming ill health retirement for a second time from a job ?
    I was offered ill heath retirement from a higher level job - 9 years ago and found another lower level job (totally different field / employer) after a few months - however my health has now deteriorated further and I am looking at ill health retirement from this job !!
    Is there any reason why I should not claim for a second time - as long as I satisfy all of the criteria needed ?
Page 1
    • sangie595
    • By sangie595 30th Jun 18, 11:09 AM
    • 5,640 Posts
    • 9,739 Thanks
    sangie595
    • #2
    • 30th Jun 18, 11:09 AM
    • #2
    • 30th Jun 18, 11:09 AM
    By ill health retirement, I assume you mean that your employer has some form of policy or pension rights that enable you to draw down a payment or income? If so, then it is entirely up to the terms of the schemes. These days a lot of schemes will only pay out, for example, if you can do no work at all - so the first policy you described probably wouldn't have paid out in many circumstances.

    If you mean this is just a straightforward dismissal on medical/ capability grounds, then yes - it can happen as many times as appropriate.

    If it's the former circumstance, I'd recommend that you check the conditions on BOTH policies before making any decisions, as you could cause yourself problems if you don't.
    • 50Twuncle
    • By 50Twuncle 30th Jun 18, 3:58 PM
    • 8,662 Posts
    • 2,059 Thanks
    50Twuncle
    • #3
    • 30th Jun 18, 3:58 PM
    • #3
    • 30th Jun 18, 3:58 PM
    By ill health retirement, I assume you mean that your employer has some form of policy or pension rights that enable you to draw down a payment or income? If so, then it is entirely up to the terms of the schemes. These days a lot of schemes will only pay out, for example, if you can do no work at all - so the first policy you described probably wouldn't have paid out in many circumstances.

    If you mean this is just a straightforward dismissal on medical/ capability grounds, then yes - it can happen as many times as appropriate.

    If it's the former circumstance, I'd recommend that you check the conditions on BOTH policies before making any decisions, as you could cause yourself problems if you don't.
    Originally posted by sangie595

    My former employer was Civil Service - I went at age 47 (with 30 years servicce) on medical retirement on a Classic pension - which, appears to only limit re-employment (and presumably re-pension) from employment covered by CSP schemes - my "new" employer is local government run scheme
    So it seems OK

    I have emailed CSP to check though
    and, obviously will let my "new" employer know
    Last edited by 50Twuncle; 30-06-2018 at 4:01 PM.
    • 50Twuncle
    • By 50Twuncle 2nd Jul 18, 8:58 AM
    • 8,662 Posts
    • 2,059 Thanks
    50Twuncle
    • #4
    • 2nd Jul 18, 8:58 AM
    • #4
    • 2nd Jul 18, 8:58 AM
    Could someone please explain to me exactly what protection a disabled person has against being made redundant ?
    According to https://www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk/en/articles/early-retirement-because-of-illness-or-disability
    it says that "Anti-discrimination laws mean you!!!8217;re protected if you!!!8217;re disabled or have certain health conditions." but does this mean that if I refuse to accept redundancy - there is nothing that my employer can do ?
    Because my Staff Reports are faultless - I am just limited on what work I can do !!
    • NYM
    • By NYM 2nd Jul 18, 9:03 AM
    • 3,641 Posts
    • 6,740 Thanks
    NYM
    • #5
    • 2nd Jul 18, 9:03 AM
    • #5
    • 2nd Jul 18, 9:03 AM
    I don't know if this will help explain... but worth a read

    Redundancy - Disability
    • sangie595
    • By sangie595 2nd Jul 18, 10:54 AM
    • 5,640 Posts
    • 9,739 Thanks
    sangie595
    • #6
    • 2nd Jul 18, 10:54 AM
    • #6
    • 2nd Jul 18, 10:54 AM
    Could someone please explain to me exactly what protection a disabled person has against being made redundant ?
    According to https://www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk/en/articles/early-retirement-because-of-illness-or-disability
    it says that "Anti-discrimination laws mean you!!!8217;re protected if you!!!8217;re disabled or have certain health conditions." but does this mean that if I refuse to accept redundancy - there is nothing that my employer can do ?
    Because my Staff Reports are faultless - I am just limited on what work I can do !!
    Originally posted by 50Twuncle
    I just love it when people who have no idea what they are talking about pontificate on official websites. This is balderdash. Starting off with there are no such protections. If you have a disability then the employer must consider reasonable adjustments to your job. That's it. Nothing to do with redundancy at all. And that would be because JOBS area made redundant, not people! So if your job is redundant, then you can refuse as long as you like - you'll still be dismissed!

    The bottom line is that if you cannot do the job that you are employer to do, that is a capability issue. You are not capable of doing the work. If you have a disability then the employer must consider if they can make adjustments or offer alternative employment. If they can't, they can dismiss. If alternative employment is considered, it does not have to be on your existing hours or pay - just that it is work that you can do.

    The local government scheme is more restrictive than the CS one was. Not sure what that one is like now. If you have union membership I'd recommend talking to them. Because the criteria are usually that there is no work you could do - as in any work at all, for any employer; you'd need to be unemployable. If you could find a job they often won't pay out. So you'd be best having knowledgeable representation about the scheme and the conditions.
    • 50Twuncle
    • By 50Twuncle 4th Jul 18, 7:23 AM
    • 8,662 Posts
    • 2,059 Thanks
    50Twuncle
    • #7
    • 4th Jul 18, 7:23 AM
    • #7
    • 4th Jul 18, 7:23 AM
    Can an employer offer less for compulsory redundancy than for voluntary redundancy?

    We have been told that this may happen if they don't get the numbers volunteering to save ths required amount of money ?
    The thing is that they are only offering the bare minimum in voluntary - so nobody has applied and the two weeks expires tomorrow !

    I believe that my employer is playing dirty!
    • lulu650
    • By lulu650 4th Jul 18, 9:41 AM
    • 924 Posts
    • 980 Thanks
    lulu650
    • #8
    • 4th Jul 18, 9:41 AM
    • #8
    • 4th Jul 18, 9:41 AM
    Can an employer offer less for compulsory redundancy than for voluntary redundancy?
    Originally posted by 50Twuncle
    Yes

    ....The thing is that they are only offering the bare minimum in voluntary....
    Originally posted by 50Twuncle
    What does this mean? If it's the statutory minimum then your company cannot pay any less

    I believe that my employer is playing dirty!
    Originally posted by 50Twuncle
    ...In what way?
    Last edited by lulu650; 04-07-2018 at 9:43 AM.
    Saving money right, left and centre
    • sangie595
    • By sangie595 4th Jul 18, 12:32 PM
    • 5,640 Posts
    • 9,739 Thanks
    sangie595
    • #9
    • 4th Jul 18, 12:32 PM
    • #9
    • 4th Jul 18, 12:32 PM
    If I'm understanding your question correctly, then it would be best practice to offer redundancy to people who want to volunteer if that is possible, but there is no reason for them to have to offer any enhancements. It simply means that they can let go those who don't want to stay. I'm not seeing anything wrong in that.
    • lisyloo
    • By lisyloo 4th Jul 18, 3:43 PM
    • 22,714 Posts
    • 11,293 Thanks
    lisyloo
    Can an employer offer less for compulsory redundancy than for voluntary redundancy?
    As long as the compulsory meets statutory minimums then yes, in fact it's often done to entice people to volunteer which is a bit nicer for everyone than making people lose their jobs.


    The thing is that they are only offering the bare minimum in voluntary - so nobody has applied and the two weeks expires tomorrow !
    How can compulsorary be less if the voluntry is the bare minimum?


    If they don't make it attractive then they are less likely to get volunteers but otherwise nothing untoward.


    Sounds like they are being a bit tight but nothing dirty.
    • hyubh
    • By hyubh 4th Jul 18, 9:13 PM
    • 2,302 Posts
    • 1,762 Thanks
    hyubh
    My former employer was Civil Service - I went at age 47 (with 30 years servicce) on medical retirement on a Classic pension - which, appears to only limit re-employment (and presumably re-pension) from employment covered by CSP schemes - my "new" employer is local government run scheme
    So it seems OK

    I have emailed CSP to check though
    and, obviously will let my "new" employer know
    Originally posted by 50Twuncle
    The ill health provisions of the two schemes are completely independent of each other. That said, one difference is that the LGPS has three 'tiers' of ill health retirement where the (P)CSPS has (had) only two. On one level this makes it formally 'easier' to get an ill health retirement in the LGPS, on the other being granted a tier 3 ill health retirement means you could in principle revert back to being a deferred member if your health improves.

    Whether, as sangie595 suggests, ill health retirements are nevertheless tougher to get in the LGPS or not won't be due to scheme rules, but the funded nature of the scheme which means there is a financial incentive for the employer not to grant them willy-nilly (while ill health retirements aren't a direct cost to the employer even in the LGPS, a disproportionate award of ill health retirements will usually impact the employer's contribution rate at the next valuation). By the way - from a council taxpayer POV, this isn't a bad thing!

    Can an employer offer less for compulsory redundancy than for voluntary redundancy?
    Originally posted by 50Twuncle
    Of course, assuming the compulsory terms meet the statutory minimum

    We have been told that this may happen if they don't get the numbers volunteering to save ths required amount of money ?
    Good stuff, hopefully the council isn't chucking taxpayers' cash at the wall unnecessarily

    The thing is that they are only offering the bare minimum in voluntary
    Very much doubt this. (Are you a lifetime public sector employee perchance...?)

    I believe that my employer is playing dirty!
    Says someone looking to claim for a second ill health retirement to avoid a bog standard compulsory redundancy

    PS - do you realise that if you are made redundant age 55 or over, then under the rules of the LGPS there will very likely be a compulsory early retirement with the employer having to pay a capital sum to the pension fund to avoid an actuarial reduction...? In other words, it may be case that you don't need to argue for an ill health retirement in the first place.
    • sangie595
    • By sangie595 4th Jul 18, 10:02 PM
    • 5,640 Posts
    • 9,739 Thanks
    sangie595
    I see no reason to suggest that the Council is offering more than the minimum. Many councils have, in fact, moved to that position, including several of the largest ones. One must assume the OP knows what the offer is.
    • hyubh
    • By hyubh 5th Jul 18, 8:14 AM
    • 2,302 Posts
    • 1,762 Thanks
    hyubh
    I see no reason to suggest that the Council is offering more than the minimum. Many councils have, in fact, moved to that position, including several of the largest ones. One must assume the OP knows what the offer is.
    Originally posted by sangie595
    The OP is the person who claimed the voluntary terms are the 'bare minimum', yet with fallback compulsory terms that are even worse!

    That said, if the OP genuinely does believe they pass the criteria for at least a tier 3 ill health retirement...

    https://www.lgpsmember.org/tol/thinking-leaving-illhealth.php

    ... they should raise an application sooner rather than later with HR (not the pension fund/scheme administrator, because it's an employer not fund-level decision).
    • 50Twuncle
    • By 50Twuncle 10th Jul 18, 9:24 AM
    • 8,662 Posts
    • 2,059 Thanks
    50Twuncle
    Yes


    What does this mean? If it's the statutory minimum then your company cannot pay any less

    ...In what way?
    Originally posted by lulu650

    Since the bare minimum in VR has been offered and nobody has applied - "management" have tried to get us to apply prior to the cut off date (last week) by threatening us with less than the amount paid in VR - if they have to impose CR - which, in itself is the legal minimum - that's what I mean by "playing dirty"
    • 50Twuncle
    • By 50Twuncle 10th Jul 18, 9:31 AM
    • 8,662 Posts
    • 2,059 Thanks
    50Twuncle
    I see no reason to suggest that the Council is offering more than the minimum. Many councils have, in fact, moved to that position, including several of the largest ones. One must assume the OP knows what the offer is.
    Originally posted by sangie595
    9 weeks pay - but since I only work 10 hours per week - that's not exactly a huge amount of money !
    • 50Twuncle
    • By 50Twuncle 10th Jul 18, 9:36 AM
    • 8,662 Posts
    • 2,059 Thanks
    50Twuncle
    The OP is the person who claimed the voluntary terms are the 'bare minimum', yet with fallback compulsory terms that are even worse!

    That said, if the OP genuinely does believe they pass the criteria for at least a tier 3 ill health retirement...

    https://www.lgpsmember.org/tol/thinking-leaving-illhealth.php

    ... they should raise an application sooner rather than later with HR (not the pension fund/scheme administrator, because it's an employer not fund-level decision).
    Originally posted by hyubh
    Sorry - you misread my original

    What I meant was that VR was the bare minimum - but we had been told that if we failed to apply - and ended up being CR - then the amount would be less !!
    • hyubh
    • By hyubh 10th Jul 18, 10:23 PM
    • 2,302 Posts
    • 1,762 Thanks
    hyubh
    Sorry - you misread my original

    What I meant was that VR was the bare minimum - but we had been told that if we failed to apply - and ended up being CR - then the amount would be less !!
    Originally posted by 50Twuncle
    I still don't get this. If VR is literally 'the bare minimum', then CR won't be less by definition (I find it inconceivable that a council would pay below the statutory minimum outside of an accidental cockup).

    PS - my point about applying for an ill health retirement (and the three tiers) still stands - terms are better in the LGPS when applying from active rather than deferred, so if you are serious, don't leave it to after you have left. That said, the cost to the employer would likely factor into whether you get a redundancy (if that is what you are after) or not, so swings and roundabouts (the LGPS has relatively robust mechanisms for ensuring that employers can't get rid of older employees with a pension bung on the cheap).
    • Cheeky_Monkey
    • By Cheeky_Monkey 11th Jul 18, 11:07 AM
    • 1,875 Posts
    • 4,089 Thanks
    Cheeky_Monkey
    9 weeks pay - but since I only work 10 hours per week - that's not exactly a huge amount of money !
    Originally posted by 50Twuncle
    No it's not, but then you don't do a huge amount of work either
    I used to be indecisive - now I'm not so sure
    • 50Twuncle
    • By 50Twuncle 11th Jul 18, 12:47 PM
    • 8,662 Posts
    • 2,059 Thanks
    50Twuncle
    No it's not, but then you don't do a huge amount of work either
    Originally posted by Cheeky_Monkey
    I do at least 10 hours - what are you implying ?
    • Cheeky_Monkey
    • By Cheeky_Monkey 11th Jul 18, 2:45 PM
    • 1,875 Posts
    • 4,089 Thanks
    Cheeky_Monkey
    I'm not implying anything. I'm saying that as you only work 10 hours a week, you can't expect to get much redundancy pay.
    I used to be indecisive - now I'm not so sure
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

373Posts Today

5,029Users online

Martin's Twitter