FAFPS 2015
Of course, I may be completely wrong, but I don't believe that you should get too distressed until you know the facts of FAFPS.
The DIN gives some like-for-like examples that make grim reading for some of those that switch to '05.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Great Britain
Age: 51
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes
on
5 Posts
JTO
The DIN spells out nothing as far as I can see. Until we know what FAFPS will pay out, then we can all guess and scaremonger. The presentation that I sat through with one of the FAFPS team showed exactly the example that's being talked about and they didn't know what FAFPS would pay either - they knew how much AFPS 75 and 05 would likely pay for service to 2015 but not what the FAFPS portion would pay on retirement.
Until we know this, then we are all just guessing. However, it is upon all of us to be fully involved in the consultation process that is just about to kick off.
Clott
PS the link for the consultation is on the bottom right hand side of this webpage Ministry of Defence | About Defence | What we do | Personnel | Armed Forces Pensions Compensation and Veterans | Find out about The Future Armed Forces Pension Scheme
The DIN spells out nothing as far as I can see. Until we know what FAFPS will pay out, then we can all guess and scaremonger. The presentation that I sat through with one of the FAFPS team showed exactly the example that's being talked about and they didn't know what FAFPS would pay either - they knew how much AFPS 75 and 05 would likely pay for service to 2015 but not what the FAFPS portion would pay on retirement.
Until we know this, then we are all just guessing. However, it is upon all of us to be fully involved in the consultation process that is just about to kick off.
Clott
PS the link for the consultation is on the bottom right hand side of this webpage Ministry of Defence | About Defence | What we do | Personnel | Armed Forces Pensions Compensation and Veterans | Find out about The Future Armed Forces Pension Scheme
Hi Clott,
Try this thread:
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...ml#post7045342
But as an example:
It is all in the DIN, so worth a careful read as I don't do scaremongering - bootscooter has it right.
Try this thread:
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...ml#post7045342
But as an example:
Those who made a move to AFPS05 on the basis that would be serving to 55 are in for a rude awakening. Their offers to transfer would have shown them that the pension they would receive at the 55 point would, on either scheme, be about the same. However, the AFPS05 scheme added a few sweeteners, such as 4 time D-I-S, so looked like the best move. However, the new scheme stops them from making their 55 point on AFPS05 so all the disadvantages of the EDP now kick in.
Examples for 2 identical wg cdrs who were both on AFPRS75 till the O-T-T (I've used the figures in the DIN):
27 years of pensionable service at the point of transition to the Future AFPS. He leaves the Armed Forces after 34 years of pensionable service at the age of 55.
Bloke who stayed on AFPS75:
He will be entitled to receive, as his accrued AFPS 75 rights, a taxable Full Career Pension of around £32,000 per annum. He will also be entitled to a tax free lump sum of around £96,000.
Bloke who moved to AFPS05:
He will be entitled to receive, as his accrued AFPS 05 rights, a taxable Pension of around £28,500 per annum. He will also be entitled to a tax free lump sum of around £85,500.
In both cases they will be entitled to pension benefits for the 7 years of pensionable service under the Future AFPS in accordance with the rules of that scheme. The rules of the new scheme, including when pensions will be paid, are under development.
So for changing to a pension scheme that evaporated 9 years later the AFPS05 bloke takes a spanking. If he stay on the old scheme he would have been ok; if the new scheme had seen him to retirement he would have been ok. But moving from 75 to 05 then forced to AFPS15 is a major kicking.
Wonder if anyone will challenge their Offer To Transfer paperwork...
Examples for 2 identical wg cdrs who were both on AFPRS75 till the O-T-T (I've used the figures in the DIN):
27 years of pensionable service at the point of transition to the Future AFPS. He leaves the Armed Forces after 34 years of pensionable service at the age of 55.
Bloke who stayed on AFPS75:
He will be entitled to receive, as his accrued AFPS 75 rights, a taxable Full Career Pension of around £32,000 per annum. He will also be entitled to a tax free lump sum of around £96,000.
Bloke who moved to AFPS05:
He will be entitled to receive, as his accrued AFPS 05 rights, a taxable Pension of around £28,500 per annum. He will also be entitled to a tax free lump sum of around £85,500.
In both cases they will be entitled to pension benefits for the 7 years of pensionable service under the Future AFPS in accordance with the rules of that scheme. The rules of the new scheme, including when pensions will be paid, are under development.
So for changing to a pension scheme that evaporated 9 years later the AFPS05 bloke takes a spanking. If he stay on the old scheme he would have been ok; if the new scheme had seen him to retirement he would have been ok. But moving from 75 to 05 then forced to AFPS15 is a major kicking.
Wonder if anyone will challenge their Offer To Transfer paperwork...
As someone who isn't effected by the new pension scheme I haven't been following this issue very closely, however....
I thought it had been stated that anyone within 10 years of retirement had been told that they "wouldn't be effected/suffer" by the introduction of the new pension. Therefore the example of the Wg Cdr quoted, 7 years left to retirement, would surely fall into this category?
Also, what is the exact wording of AFPS05, if it refers to "serving" until 55, then the Wg Cdr in question is doing so...? He hasn't left the service early, and isn't taking EDPs from the age of 48 while still serving as an active Wg Cdr... He just isn't accumulating any more years in his 05 pot (that is of course assuming the "protected with less than 10 years to go" arguement isn't actually being applied)
The choice of changing to 05 or staying on 75 was a personal one, with a variety of factors, not just the 4x D-I-S. The widows pension is also better under 05, and if you coupled 05 with PAS you were in a "win-win" situation. However, as in all things, it did require certain assumptions to be made, as to staying in until 55, there is one school of thought that says retiring before 55 on the 05 scheme is actually the most financially astute option.
Sorry if I've gotten hold of the wrong end of the stick!
I thought it had been stated that anyone within 10 years of retirement had been told that they "wouldn't be effected/suffer" by the introduction of the new pension. Therefore the example of the Wg Cdr quoted, 7 years left to retirement, would surely fall into this category?
Also, what is the exact wording of AFPS05, if it refers to "serving" until 55, then the Wg Cdr in question is doing so...? He hasn't left the service early, and isn't taking EDPs from the age of 48 while still serving as an active Wg Cdr... He just isn't accumulating any more years in his 05 pot (that is of course assuming the "protected with less than 10 years to go" arguement isn't actually being applied)
The choice of changing to 05 or staying on 75 was a personal one, with a variety of factors, not just the 4x D-I-S. The widows pension is also better under 05, and if you coupled 05 with PAS you were in a "win-win" situation. However, as in all things, it did require certain assumptions to be made, as to staying in until 55, there is one school of thought that says retiring before 55 on the 05 scheme is actually the most financially astute option.
Sorry if I've gotten hold of the wrong end of the stick!
JTO
Those that accepted the offer to transfer took a gamble and now the gamble may be less of such a good deal than they imagine. There are a few aircrew who stayed Spec Aircrew and didn't swap to PAS and they retired on less than they could have as PAS on AFPS05 - there are also those that retired as PAS on AFPS05 who were barely average at their job and got equivalent to a Wg Cdr's pension. What am I trying to say? There are lots of winners and losers in the pension offer to transfer and that is just life.
I could get really mad over the decisions that have occured over the years or I could just live with it. Your example shows a drop of about 10% for the notional Wg Cdr - if that reflects across the board, then its not that bad IMHO. There is also a chance that FAFPS may compensate for this shortfall through the faster accrual rate that is being hinted at (the new civil service scheme is also getting a faster accrual rate I believe?).
I reckon that there will be winners and losers again this time around, there probably always will be. But like Cpl Clott says, let's wait to hear the facts before getting too "angry of Sleaford Town" about it.
LJ
Those that accepted the offer to transfer took a gamble and now the gamble may be less of such a good deal than they imagine. There are a few aircrew who stayed Spec Aircrew and didn't swap to PAS and they retired on less than they could have as PAS on AFPS05 - there are also those that retired as PAS on AFPS05 who were barely average at their job and got equivalent to a Wg Cdr's pension. What am I trying to say? There are lots of winners and losers in the pension offer to transfer and that is just life.
I could get really mad over the decisions that have occured over the years or I could just live with it. Your example shows a drop of about 10% for the notional Wg Cdr - if that reflects across the board, then its not that bad IMHO. There is also a chance that FAFPS may compensate for this shortfall through the faster accrual rate that is being hinted at (the new civil service scheme is also getting a faster accrual rate I believe?).
I reckon that there will be winners and losers again this time around, there probably always will be. But like Cpl Clott says, let's wait to hear the facts before getting too "angry of Sleaford Town" about it.
LJ
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: South West
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Gamble"
LJ,
To transfer to the 05 pension scheme from the 75 pension scheme in my eyes was never a 'gamble' but a sound decision made by the choices offered to me at the time, & whilst I for 1 will escape unscathed as I'm over 45 on 1 Apr 12, I do feel for the other guys who will get stung.
To transfer to the 05 pension scheme from the 75 pension scheme in my eyes was never a 'gamble' but a sound decision made by the choices offered to me at the time, & whilst I for 1 will escape unscathed as I'm over 45 on 1 Apr 12, I do feel for the other guys who will get stung.
LJ,
How well one did, or didn't, do one's job has never been a determining factor in the size of one's pension!
You appear, but perhaps I am wrong, to be "miffed" that a Flt Lt on the PAS who is "barely average" at their job may retire on a Wg Cdr's size pension. If it's any consolation - rest assured that I have come across quite a few Wg Cdrs who are "barely average" at their job - and nobody seems to query their pension entitlement!
Perhaps I have read the tone of your comment incorrectly - if so I apologise unreservedly!!
How well one did, or didn't, do one's job has never been a determining factor in the size of one's pension!
You appear, but perhaps I am wrong, to be "miffed" that a Flt Lt on the PAS who is "barely average" at their job may retire on a Wg Cdr's size pension. If it's any consolation - rest assured that I have come across quite a few Wg Cdrs who are "barely average" at their job - and nobody seems to query their pension entitlement!
Perhaps I have read the tone of your comment incorrectly - if so I apologise unreservedly!!
Biggus, Equilibrium et al
No need to apologise as I was being "bullish" with my opinion!
IIRC the decision to tranfer was made after the PAS spine opened, and so those that chose to transfer to PAS and then to AFPS05 hit the jackpot big time. Those that didn't had a normal pension comensurate to their rank. Quite frankly, IMHO, the PAS and AFPS05 was a complete c0ck up (but very nice for those that got it). It left people "gambling" accepting promotion to Sqn Ldr in the hope they would make Wg Cdr, or they may as well stay a "gash shag" Flt Lt and climbing on the PAS gravy train. The reason for the incredibly devisive FRIs for Sqn Ldr aircrew (a second order c0ck up) was to try and attract those to stay and go for Wg Cdr rank.
On those who elected to go AFPS05, well there are never any guarantees that you would serve to 55 - redundancy, medical discharge or change of family circumstance could all affect the ability to go the long haul. Quite simply, those that switched did take a "gamble" in my opinion and it looks like that gamble MAY not pay off (a notional 10% decrease depending on what FAFPS brings).
As Clott has been saying throughout, there are no decisions yet on FAFPS. It's up to all of us to ensure our circumstances are heard during the consultation process.
Finally, I was on AFPS75 and I'm now on RFPS05 (which is similar to AFPS05) and I'm also likely to be hit by potential FAFPS changes; so I guess that gives me a "speaking chit" and also a right to be concerned. I took a "gamble" and it has taken me outside the protection of the "10 year rule" that I would be under if I hadn't changed (voluntary just like the offer to transfer) - but you won't be hearing me rant about the fairness of it all as sh!t happens...
10 years+ notice of a 10% shortfall seems pretty fair as we've all got time to do something about it. Those of us who know others in the civilian world know that they have been suffering similar shortfalls with no back up or ability to consult. I guess what I'm saying is, it's all a matter of perspective.
LJ
No need to apologise as I was being "bullish" with my opinion!
IIRC the decision to tranfer was made after the PAS spine opened, and so those that chose to transfer to PAS and then to AFPS05 hit the jackpot big time. Those that didn't had a normal pension comensurate to their rank. Quite frankly, IMHO, the PAS and AFPS05 was a complete c0ck up (but very nice for those that got it). It left people "gambling" accepting promotion to Sqn Ldr in the hope they would make Wg Cdr, or they may as well stay a "gash shag" Flt Lt and climbing on the PAS gravy train. The reason for the incredibly devisive FRIs for Sqn Ldr aircrew (a second order c0ck up) was to try and attract those to stay and go for Wg Cdr rank.
On those who elected to go AFPS05, well there are never any guarantees that you would serve to 55 - redundancy, medical discharge or change of family circumstance could all affect the ability to go the long haul. Quite simply, those that switched did take a "gamble" in my opinion and it looks like that gamble MAY not pay off (a notional 10% decrease depending on what FAFPS brings).
As Clott has been saying throughout, there are no decisions yet on FAFPS. It's up to all of us to ensure our circumstances are heard during the consultation process.
Finally, I was on AFPS75 and I'm now on RFPS05 (which is similar to AFPS05) and I'm also likely to be hit by potential FAFPS changes; so I guess that gives me a "speaking chit" and also a right to be concerned. I took a "gamble" and it has taken me outside the protection of the "10 year rule" that I would be under if I hadn't changed (voluntary just like the offer to transfer) - but you won't be hearing me rant about the fairness of it all as sh!t happens...
10 years+ notice of a 10% shortfall seems pretty fair as we've all got time to do something about it. Those of us who know others in the civilian world know that they have been suffering similar shortfalls with no back up or ability to consult. I guess what I'm saying is, it's all a matter of perspective.
LJ
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Pantsville
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LJ - so at what time scale, and what percentage slashing of my pension should I start getting upset about? And what if in 6 years time we have our pensions cut again?
I've got 12 years left to my 55, and I'm most certainly not a Wg Cdr that'll be picking up the kind of figures stated up there. I do however, have 2 teenage children that will hopefully be going to University/ buying cars/ buying flats etc and I'd worked out how much I'd be able to help them (not to mention keeping Mrs B in the manner.....) based upon what I'd signed up to receive.
It appears that through not fault of my own I've now lost a sizeable chunk of what I expected, and have even lost out further purely because I had the audacity to agree to a pension that was offered to me.
I don't want to come across as a sulky child, but it really is not fair.
*stamps feet*
I've got 12 years left to my 55, and I'm most certainly not a Wg Cdr that'll be picking up the kind of figures stated up there. I do however, have 2 teenage children that will hopefully be going to University/ buying cars/ buying flats etc and I'd worked out how much I'd be able to help them (not to mention keeping Mrs B in the manner.....) based upon what I'd signed up to receive.
It appears that through not fault of my own I've now lost a sizeable chunk of what I expected, and have even lost out further purely because I had the audacity to agree to a pension that was offered to me.
I don't want to come across as a sulky child, but it really is not fair.
*stamps feet*
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
its good for them. Most are within the 10 year cutoff. bearing in mind the size of their pensions, wouldnt it have been nice for all at 1* and above to waive their grandfather rights? no, thought that wouldnt happen either. 
I am absolutely disgusted by the apparent terms of FAFPS and believe it represents a direct and absolute betrayal of all members of the Armed Forces by the Senior officers who 'claim' to represent them.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bootscooter,
Forgeting AVCs for the moment, have you considered other ways of making hay whilst the sun shines? There are lots of pros and cons and they're not right for everyone but given your stated circumstances and possibly, your needs, it might be worth you delving a little deeper to get a more informed perspective.
http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/FC4FE...5AYFactors.pdf
Forgeting AVCs for the moment, have you considered other ways of making hay whilst the sun shines? There are lots of pros and cons and they're not right for everyone but given your stated circumstances and possibly, your needs, it might be worth you delving a little deeper to get a more informed perspective.
http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/FC4FE...5AYFactors.pdf
Added years is the route I took when looking to boost my pension as a relatively 'late joiner' after 4 years at university. When compared to most, average stock market returns over the past 5 years or so, the idea of being able to bump your guaranteed pension up by an index linked amount each year seemed quite a good deal.
However, I will be very interested to see what happens to AVCs under the new scheme. I am hoping that they won't be massively effected, after all, extra years are just that, so I would hope be applicable to all schemes. If not and they decide to close the AVC route under FAPS, I would hope to get a refund of contributions paid so far if they are not going to honour them.
Out of interest, and related to some of the earlier comments about moving to AFPS 05, one comment from an FPS presentation I attended at the time immediately came to mind about 05. It ran something along the lines of "think very carefully before you elect to change schemes; if in doubt, you should probably stick with what you have now. If you change and it proves to be the correct decision, the benefits will be far outweighed by the potential losses if you change and it proves to have been the wrong choice." A little bit of better the devil you know, but it was enough to persuade me to stay on 75.
However, I will be very interested to see what happens to AVCs under the new scheme. I am hoping that they won't be massively effected, after all, extra years are just that, so I would hope be applicable to all schemes. If not and they decide to close the AVC route under FAPS, I would hope to get a refund of contributions paid so far if they are not going to honour them.
Out of interest, and related to some of the earlier comments about moving to AFPS 05, one comment from an FPS presentation I attended at the time immediately came to mind about 05. It ran something along the lines of "think very carefully before you elect to change schemes; if in doubt, you should probably stick with what you have now. If you change and it proves to be the correct decision, the benefits will be far outweighed by the potential losses if you change and it proves to have been the wrong choice." A little bit of better the devil you know, but it was enough to persuade me to stay on 75.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AVCs are different to buying Added Years, and placed with a third party so you should be fine. As to what happens to them, perhaps that is best answered by wondering why anyone would want to buy additional units (by whatever route) with a scheme that is looking increasingly out of touch with what people had in mind when they joined up.
Don't be fixated 'just' on stock market returns either - choppy equity March mind.
Don't be fixated 'just' on stock market returns either - choppy equity March mind.
Al,
When I bought into the extra years under the 75 scheme, it was sold as being an 'in scheme' AVC rather than being held with a third party, hence my wondering what will happen to them when that scheme is effectively wound up to new business.
However, I do agree with you entirely on wondering why people would do it. At the time, I was fairly sure I was going to make the effort for the long haul, but these past few years are sorely testing that original plan.
When I bought into the extra years under the 75 scheme, it was sold as being an 'in scheme' AVC rather than being held with a third party, hence my wondering what will happen to them when that scheme is effectively wound up to new business.
However, I do agree with you entirely on wondering why people would do it. At the time, I was fairly sure I was going to make the effort for the long haul, but these past few years are sorely testing that original plan.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Great Britain
Age: 51
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes
on
5 Posts
IMPORTANT!!!
The online consultation starts today and finishes 11 May 12...
...IT IS IN ALL OF OUR INTERESTS TO FILL IT OUT
FAFPS consultation
Tell your mates about it as well by any means possible
CPL Clott
...IT IS IN ALL OF OUR INTERESTS TO FILL IT OUT
FAFPS consultation
Tell your mates about it as well by any means possible
CPL Clott
Last edited by Corporal Clott; 29th Mar 2012 at 20:33.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Great Britain
Age: 51
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes
on
5 Posts
PS The presentation I saw is at this link that might help some understand...
http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/B2DC9...ndard_V72U.ppt
Warning, it is a big file but worth a read for those that can't make the presentation.
Clott
http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/B2DC9...ndard_V72U.ppt
Warning, it is a big file but worth a read for those that can't make the presentation.
Clott
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh Dear
Cpl Clott,
As instructed I filled out the online consultation form and my how disappointed I was. Such a serious subject given such cursory and loaded questions by DASA.
With so much still to be decided this consultation period should be conducted once the draft proposals have been published.
Fundamentally I believe that HMG/HMT are missing the point. The majority of us complete our Service careers between 45-55, and any HR specialisit would advocate that unless the leaving Service Person had particular skills, then this is not the optimum age to compete with the national/international work force.
Therefore EDP, IP and leaving the Service should be retained for the 35-40 year point, with enough lump sum to re-train and to make up the salary in going in at the bottom of a Private Sector HR workforce.
Secondly, if the pension benefits are reduced significantly then Defence's high achievers and those with greatest potential will leave for the private sector as there is no (reduced) incentive to stay (especially if they will have to leave at 55 and then try and establish a second career).
This will result in the not so high achievers and 'B Team' of Defence Senior Leadership making its way to the top ranks.
I believe that it has been the acknowledgement that Service Personnel recognise that their chances of a true second career at 45-55 is much reduced, but outweighed by the understanding that HMG/MOD will rectify this imbalance through a decent pension.
I would also go as far as to suggest that as Pension benefits is probably the number 1 or 2 reason for Service Personnel being retained in Service beyond age 40, that any significant change in Pension rights should also come with a 'break opportunity' for those that want to 'opt out'.
If I had just taken promotion, a new commission, or anything that results in a return of service based upon a career plan with the current Pension Calculator forecasts, then once the full details are known I should be given the option to leave the Service in an attempt to switch to a genuine (and potentially more incentivised) second career in the Private Sector.
My last point is that the current HMG 'are making hay while the sun shines' as the Economic Recession is presenting a rosey picture of the MOD and Service Personnel, many areas in 100% manning that has been unheard of for years. This means that many Service Personnel are just grateful for employment.
But when (and it is when, not if) the economy picks up then it will be interesting to watch how HMG, MOD and if they care, HMT, attempt to prevent the mass VO of Service Personnel, potentially all those 'middle managers' with significant experience in the age bracket 35-45, where hanging in there for the pension is no longer quite the retention positive factor that it once was.
As instructed I filled out the online consultation form and my how disappointed I was. Such a serious subject given such cursory and loaded questions by DASA.
With so much still to be decided this consultation period should be conducted once the draft proposals have been published.
Fundamentally I believe that HMG/HMT are missing the point. The majority of us complete our Service careers between 45-55, and any HR specialisit would advocate that unless the leaving Service Person had particular skills, then this is not the optimum age to compete with the national/international work force.
Therefore EDP, IP and leaving the Service should be retained for the 35-40 year point, with enough lump sum to re-train and to make up the salary in going in at the bottom of a Private Sector HR workforce.
Secondly, if the pension benefits are reduced significantly then Defence's high achievers and those with greatest potential will leave for the private sector as there is no (reduced) incentive to stay (especially if they will have to leave at 55 and then try and establish a second career).
This will result in the not so high achievers and 'B Team' of Defence Senior Leadership making its way to the top ranks.
I believe that it has been the acknowledgement that Service Personnel recognise that their chances of a true second career at 45-55 is much reduced, but outweighed by the understanding that HMG/MOD will rectify this imbalance through a decent pension.
I would also go as far as to suggest that as Pension benefits is probably the number 1 or 2 reason for Service Personnel being retained in Service beyond age 40, that any significant change in Pension rights should also come with a 'break opportunity' for those that want to 'opt out'.
If I had just taken promotion, a new commission, or anything that results in a return of service based upon a career plan with the current Pension Calculator forecasts, then once the full details are known I should be given the option to leave the Service in an attempt to switch to a genuine (and potentially more incentivised) second career in the Private Sector.
My last point is that the current HMG 'are making hay while the sun shines' as the Economic Recession is presenting a rosey picture of the MOD and Service Personnel, many areas in 100% manning that has been unheard of for years. This means that many Service Personnel are just grateful for employment.
But when (and it is when, not if) the economy picks up then it will be interesting to watch how HMG, MOD and if they care, HMT, attempt to prevent the mass VO of Service Personnel, potentially all those 'middle managers' with significant experience in the age bracket 35-45, where hanging in there for the pension is no longer quite the retention positive factor that it once was.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Great Britain
Age: 51
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes
on
5 Posts
MM4
Yup, all valid points and I hope you mentioned them in the comments box at the end? The more of us that bring these types of points up, the better, in my opinion. Who knows, it may drag out the consultation beyond the target that in turn will delay FAFPS - we can but hope!
Clott
Yup, all valid points and I hope you mentioned them in the comments box at the end? The more of us that bring these types of points up, the better, in my opinion. Who knows, it may drag out the consultation beyond the target that in turn will delay FAFPS - we can but hope!
Clott