Originally Posted by
alfred_the_great
Except it doesn’t say that. It says the age based transitional protection was unlawful; that is to say it was unlawful to allow some to remain on their old pension simply because they were over a specific age on a certain day. The simply answer is to transition everyone - regardless of age - onto a new scheme.
edit - you may get between 2015 and 2021/2 on your old scheme, but the intent is to move everyone onto a 15-esque scheme ASAP.
Originally Posted by
alfred_the_great
Except it doesn’t say that. It says the age based transitional protection was unlawful; that is to say it was unlawful to allow some to remain on their old pension simply because they were over a specific age on a certain day. The simply answer is to transition everyone - regardless of age - onto a new scheme.
edit - you may get between 2015 and 2021/2 on your old scheme, but the intent is to move everyone onto a 15-esque scheme ASAP.
FWIW, Alfred the Great, I am inclined to agree, but even as recently as December 2020 the specialists at Air Command seemed (during their own pensions brief!) were unclear as to what was to come next, so I can see why people imagine they may be able simply to drop back onto the AFPS75 scheme for the remainder of their service. That 'Skype' brief was unusually well attended by the way, mainly by people looking for information about the MOD's proposal on McLeod, but aside from the sunset date, they had nothing to offer.
A switch to the AFPS 05 was by choice. We were all, ahem, briefed on the pros and cons and left to make up our own minds on whether or not to switch. I recall there was quite a bit of pushing to go to the 05 scheme and I was a bit surprised that there were no (?) cases brought subsequently by people who felt they had been poorly advised by others who were neither independent nor well enough qualified to provide financial advice. Personally I took the view that any new scheme would be less expensive to the government and, therefore, less beneficial to scheme members - it was as simple as that, and I know of others who applied the same logic. The result was that not enough people transferred over, which is why the 2015 scheme was brought in.
Removing choice from the equation, the 2015 scheme was forced on anyone with more than a certain number of years to serve (5 I think), but I fell into the group that didn't move, so I stayed on the AFPS75. The implication that this was based on age is just that, an implication. As I understand it, some people due to retire at 38 in 2019 would not have been moved. Others of the same age but scheduled to retire at 55 were moved, so I am not sure why this is just considered to be based on age - proximity to departure point would be a more accurate assessment.
Whatever's coming is just over a year away and we know the MOD's (and Government's) collective mind is on other things. For some a switch back to the 75 or 05 schemes for the period 2015 to Mar 22 will offset the (even worse?) scheme to come; for others I predict an enforced gut shot - but I have no specialist or inside knowledge.
STH