Hold at Satan said:
The triennial valuation of 2003 stated that the underlying costs were 26.8%, yet NATS chose to ignore that laibility and pay in much less. This mismanagement has caused our future expected underlying costs to be so high. The 2006 valuation stated that when NATS increase contribution to 20% in 2008, the surplus in the fund would be exhausted in around 6yrs. Thus from 2008, the contributions (average 20%) NATS make will be below what the fund needs. The much lower amounts and holidays in the years leading up to 2008, have cause as massive increase i the underlying rate
If this is true then are NATS management or the trustees not guilty of mismanaging our pension fund? - we need to find out more about this together with the legal obligations these people have.
Are management legally bound to follow the actuaries report/recommendations?
If they have not followed what the reports said then it is up to them to put things right - they can kiss my
before I accept any changes to OUR pension