Pensionjusticefortroops Petition

[Wander00]

May have missed it, but not seen mention of e-petition to Parliament, at change.org, and reported in yesterday's Sunday Times. 56,000 signatures so far and so only 44,000 more needed to have it debated


https://www.change.org/p/pm-david-cameron-keep-your-promise-to-our-troops-compensate-service-personnel-made-compulsorily-redundant-close-to-pension-point


Follows on from petition with about 13,000 signatures to which the Government replied in 2013

[ExGrunt]

Signed the petition.

However, I do believe that it was a deliberate policy (possibly driven by the Treasury) to pick off a disproportionate number just short of their pensions as a similar thing happened at the time of Options for Change back in the 1990s. There are huge savings to be made, so I don't think it was 'accidental'.

EG

[Al R]

I was happy to help Ian and be quoted in his piece, it's a disgraceful situation made worse by the fact that remedy is simple and cheap. The Forces Pension Society, as a body, has taken a curious strategic position on this, it runs the risk of being peripheral when it should be at the heart of things relating to military pensioners - the reasons offered so far stand little credible merit.

https://spark.adobe.com/page/nk3oh/

[Wander00]

Al R - I will see what I can find out from FPS, but it will be later tomorrow

[Al R]

I've engaged with JPB (at FPS helm) about it. He has a view, which is fine, but one that I don't agree with. I know that a few people within DWP and Westminster are surprised at FPS lack of appetite to take it on - once things settle down in government, it (hopefully) can be addressed properly.

[Out Of Trim]

Petition Signed:ok:

[Voxpop]

Al mentioned our position - here it is:

https://forcespensionsociety.org/news/the-pension-betrayal/

[Lantern10]

Signed it.

[Wander00]

FPS position - seems reasonable. (IMHO)

[Al R]

Al mentioned our position - here it is:

https://forcespensionsociety.org/news/the-pension-betrayal/

Thank you!

The deeper one looks into this, the more interesting it becomes, the civil servants at Land Command, the Border Agency and at the MoD at the time, may need to have their thinking reviewed. There are already many recent instances of the MoD displaying flexibility (thereby creating 'fresh' victims as the line in the sand moves), and I'm unable to accept the MoD/FPS contention that sliding scales create their own injustices, and therefore, must be avoided.

The Forces Pension Society under John's superb stewardship seems to be gaining in strength and stature across many platforms at Whitehall, but this is a more prosaic cause that must not be overlooked. The sticking point seems to be one of drawing a line in the sand and who is penalised, and who isn't. One case in point which captures many facets of this particular matter, is the issue of Gurkha resettlement.

The MoD had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into providing a measure of graduated support that it hadn't wanted to. Indeed, in this exchange on the Home Affairs Committee, Lin Homer (a senior civil servant at the Border Agency) was forced to concede there were many grey areas and that there was not a line in the sand, which it now relies on.. there indeed was a sliding scale.


Q23 Patrick Mercer: Could you explain the precise calculations behind the Government's figures of 4,000 ex-Gurkhas and around 6,000 dependants who will be eligible under the rules you announced on 24 April, please?

Ms Homer: The figure of 4,000, which we are confident about because this is based on actual information, is that about 2,200 will meet the 20 years of service, of which about 55% will not be officers. We think that we will then have 100 that would qualify under the Gallantry Rule, 700 under the medical rules and at least 1,000 under the combination of secondary factors. For example, there are 500 who would get a Mention in Dispatches with ten years of service. So that is how we have put together those figures which are based on the actual service that these people have provided. We are confident that those are an accurate summary.

Q24 Patrick Mercer: Let me just return to the conditions of service. Would you confirm that below the rank of warrant officer 2nd class there is a cut-off point in Gurkha service at the 15-year point? I absolutely take the point about not joining as an officer, but if you have not progressed up to warrant officer 2nd class, in other words to colour sergeant, then the terms of service kick in and your discharge occurs at that point, does it not?

Mr Pitt-Brooke: I do not think that is quite true. If you progress as far as colour sergeant you would retire at 19 years, not at 15. There is a sliding scale.

The matter of there being a cut off is one used.. when it suits. If the issue of there being a hybrid pension award being made to compensate, then so be it. After all, David Cameron felt able to make an ex gratia payment to his advisers, last week. More interestingly, the government has established a fund to retrospectively assist those Gurkhas it now concedes were dealt with unfairly.

I will be writing shortly, to Vice Admiral Peter Wilkinson CB CVO, Air Vice-Marshal Andrew Burton OBE and Major General Peter Currie CB CBE to appraise them of my concerns, and to see if we can't move forward together. More recently, and I accept it's only one particular area, the MoD has broadened its scope of retrospective flexibility further in the matter of helping the Gurkhas - we live in hope.

In the meantime, we shall plod on, regrettably, without the help, support or co-operation of the Forces Pension Society.

[Wander00]

Al R - I strongly support your efforts, but shall stay out of it so I don't muddy any waters. If you require letters in support, just ask

Best


W

[Al R]

Thank you, and noted.

We are asking, in effect, for transitional protection. It's fair. I accept that there will always be fresh victims but we had TP for AFPS15 - why is that acceptable, but this not? Further, the Central Advisory Committee for Compensation appear to have discussed changes before the legislation was very quietly changed in 2010 (coincidentally, just before the redundancies were announced) but deemed them 'non contentious'. It's all very weird.

[Tinribs]

Several posters seem to expect fairness for service pension scheme members, this is not the case
As a RAF Officer from 1964 to 1983 we were all mystified by the pension arrangements and somewhat misinformed
It was only on reaching my state pension age that I discovered my service years did not count towards a state pension and it was not possible to buy back those years as this can only be done from earned income, this costs me £95 per week
I also did not know that service before 21 did not count towards the service pension
Current service people should not expect to be told their pension arrangements and or not expect fairness to apply

[k3k3]

I was an airman from 1974 to 1983, I was never,ever, briefed on AFPS75. It was only because i worked in a military environment after leaving the RAF that I learned of it. I would not be surprised if there are not thousands of ex-serviceman who are entitled to a pension but won't claim because they have never heard of it.

[Dan Winterland]

Signed. And shared on fb.

[The Old Fat One]

Signed. And shared on fb.

**** ditto ****

[Al R]

Thank you, and to anyone else who can sign and circulate the link. The longer this is allowed to continue unabated, the greater the injustice. Not 'sense' of injustice, but actual injustice. If anyone is interested, this (http://adobe.ly/2ap3wTf) is my slightly redacted briefing note, outlining the case. To date, no one who has looked into the matter hasn't declared themselves amazed it a) happened, b) was allowed to happen.

It's easy to overlook this particular profile/tranche of serviceman/woman, they aren't that many in number and they're generally of a personal and professional disposition and circumstance which precludes them from making a fuss. They're middle ranking officers looking for good jobs in civvy street, too, so they don't make particularly good media. This doesn't excuse the actions of the MoD. And if you tolerate this, then your children will be next.

[Lordflasheart]

Petition signed, and a small donation.

Tinribs - It was only on reaching my state pension age that I discovered my service years did not count towards a state pension and it was not possible to buy back those years as this can only be done from earned income, this costs me £95 per week

Que ?

Might I please ask what authority they quoted for this peculiar ruling ? Unless you have a very unique set of personal circumstances, I would venture to suggest you have been seriously misled. pm me if you prefer. LFH


..............................

[Tinribs]

Every year since reaching pension age my state pension statement has read "Less contracted out Deduction" currently £99 per week

I contacted the pension system whop told me, very politely, that this was the case and that since I now had no earned income I could not buy back the lost years as would have been possible if I had applied earlier
I was/am angry as I have no recall of being told about the and would certainly have done whatever was allowed to buy back into the system. Basically those in the pension system knew we were ignorant of the situation and our service master took no action to draw the situation to our attention
It would be interesting to know what proportion of senior officer did buy those years back but I don't suppose anyone is going to tell us
The pension system had many errors. The whole of my generation knew wives claimed state pension on their working husbands contributions, so they did but the it was only payable on the husband reaching his pension age. Wives could only buy back the lost years from their working earnings.

[ricardian]

There was an arbitrary cut off in 1975 - before that date folk like me who was demobbed in 1973 with 12 years service had no pension entitlement. After that date in 1975 it appears that all service counts towards a pension. And my 12 years RAF service could not be counted towards my Civil Service pension

[Al R]

By way of an update, we have had sight of some of the MoD and various committee admin which preceded the Statutory Instruments relating to these changes. To say they provide more questions than answers is an understatement, it seems the idea was sold as an innocent 'harmonisation'. To suggest that some organisations and people, who should have known better, were asleep at the wheel is possibly another understatement.

[Pontius Navigator]

Tinribs, regarding contacted out, all part of SERPS and covered in the annual statement. In theory you benefit from SERPS but have a deduction from the basic state pension.

[sled dog]

Signed with pleasure

[oldmansquipper]

Done! Hopefully the politicians will not come the old "David Who? Never heard of him" and Maggie Mk II will get to see it...

[Tinribs]

I suppose I am bound to take a jaundiced view but when I signed on and took the queens shilling, well actually the queens pound, I was to get a pension at 38 with a gratuity and my full state pension. That was the deal. What I got was a pension at 38 and no full state pension. I have trouble seeing how that is fairt

[Basil]

Probably more a Treasury than MoD problem.
Signed.

[Wander00]

Wonder what the chances are that TM will pay more than lip service of her predecessors to the Military Covenant