AFPS15 - government decision.

[Al R]

In December, The Fire Brigades Union won a landmark ruling in its dispute with the government over changes made to firefighters’ pensions in 2015. It signaled that younger firefighters on the new scheme would have to be put back on the previous pension scheme, and was fought on the basis of age discrimination. You may remember that some of you had grandfathering rights bestowed upon them, and were able to remain in their existing scheme due to proximity to normal retirement age. The government said it would appeal of course. But this announcement from Liz Truss is interesting. If it fails, it seems that remedial action may cost the Treasury £4bns pa.

Watch this space.. Pensions eh? Who said they were boring? Whenever I meet someone at a do and they ask what I now do, and I say ‘Pensions actually, a bit dull I’m afraid’, their likely faces usually light up. ‘No, no.. not dull at all!’

https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2019-01-30/HCWS1286/

[jayteeto]

My missus is in a group of police officers fighting the same decision, waiting to see what happens here. Another group fighting it are our Judges!! Who will rule on their case?

[Just This Once...]

Having left on mixed 75/15 terms I guess my pension payments may change again. Presumably the gov could appeal the recent decision to the UKSC to get even more learned judges involved.

[Al R]

I only dread to think how lifetime allowance headroom/breaches will be calculated/recalculated, if benefits increase.

[reds & greens]

The sinister side of me is wondering how long it will be before we have another deviation in the Pensions; having saved a fortune going from RPI to CPI, I sense the next venture will be a mandated transfer from CPI to CPI(H)...

[kintyred]

Oh no! Don't put me back on APFS05. I left a few years ago and have rejoined on APFS15. I love the new career average calculation from the comfort of level 35 PAS!

[Al R]

More info.

https://www.ftadviser.com/pensions/2019/01/31/govt-faces-4bn-pension-cost/

[Melchett01]

My missus is in a group of police officers fighting the same decision, waiting to see what happens here. Another group fighting it are our Judges!! Who will rule on their case?

I think the judges’ case was considered alongside the firefighters case back in Dec because of the similarities of the 2.

Part of me is quite excited to see a penny-pinching short-termist Government skewered by their own legislation. However, some thoughts did spring to mind if they lose their appeal and have to put things right.

1. More pensions uncertainty would follow. My betting would be a new scheme introduced to keep the pensions bill down, with no grandfather rights and everybody even worse off than now to avoid inflating the pensions bill further (despite the fact that more folk leaving and fewer staying long enough to earn a pension means the bill going forward is already lower). Especially if the economy tanks post-BREXIT.

2. Any new scheme would potentially be contributory or have a lower level of annual accrual.

3. Played out across the public sector, if the economy does tank with job losses, wage freezes and generally more fiscal misery, the public wouldn’t take kindly to being told the government has to find an extra £4Bn to sort out a pensions Mess. Would this see a renewed campaign against public sector pensions? If the government is looking to rebuild its popularity ahead of an election, this would be one way. Misery for all!

4. If forced to review the AFPS 15 measures, what else would be cut to pay for it? Well, depending which bit of the budget pensions come out of, I can see more personnel cuts, making life even harder for those left.

In short, much like bags of smoke, this could be a double-edged sword. I’ll happily go back to 75, but the wary cynic in me says it won’t be that simple.

[Al R]

‪This looks like everyone in Armed Forces Pension Scheme who was erroneously moved into AFPS15, will be returned to membership their previous scheme (most likely AFPS05). ‬

‪Remedying the discrimination will cost c£4bn a year. ‬
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1125x1387/08e67786_1a74_43b8_9d87_aea21df34f73_5598fd34a3cfc5bfe527688 66c928e99214fdc85.jpeg
https://www.ftadviser.com/pensions/2019/12/02/judges-and-firefighters-to-get-pre-2015-pensions/

[Asturias56]

can anyone explain the basis of the £ 4 Bn per year please?

The AFPS has stated:-

"In line with other public service pension schemes the AFPS has considered the potential impact on the outcome on the scheme and, as a result, felt it prudent to increase the past service costs. For the AFPS this has been estimated at £1.9 billion and has been recognised in 2018-19. Further details on the valuation of the liability, the key assumptions and uncertainties can be found in notes 2.1 and 13.4 to the accounts."

[downsizer]

Why would you be moved back to '05 if you were purely on '75?

[Al R]

Why would you be moved back to '05 if you were purely on '75?

You wouldn’t. I was assuming that more still in service and compulsorily transitioned, will have done so from 05 by now, that’s all. The remedial work required is going to be mind boggling.

[Al R]

can anyone explain the basis of the £ 4 Bn per year please?."

It relates to the public sector, not just AFPS.

[Just This Once...]

PA Spine on AFPS75/15 terms is considerably more lucrative than pure AFPS75 terms.

Interesting times.

[heights good]

This will have previous winners, who are now losers and vice-versa! Standby for lots of stress and moaning. This is such a mess.

I wonder if people will be given the choice of moving or not....

[Just This Once...]

No union or representation for HM Forces; if the government had applied the 2015 pension changes to the Armed Forces alone then there would have been no day in court and no remedial financial adjustment.

Funny how things turn out, especially when you force a change on the judiciary.

[downsizer]

The best thing "they" could have done was enroll all post 15 joiners on the 15 pension and offer all in service pre-15 the choice. Same as they did for the 05 scheme. Would have avoided all this mess.

[wokkamate]

It would really useful if a Pension Calculator was produced to show the differences between 75/15 and pure 75 (other combinations apply too, of course!) assuming we will get a choice of reverting, or not.....

[Al R]

It would really useful if a Pension Calculator was produced to show the differences between 75/15 and pure 75 (other combinations apply too, of course!) assuming we will get a choice of reverting, or not.....

It would be futile.

I don’t know if HMG will simply authorise restitution or go down the compensation route. The possibilities are mind boggling. I have no doubt that many will have been severely financially disadvantaged. The opportunity cost is a major major exercise in its own right. I suspect HMG and MoD will try to fudge it.

The granular detail you can go down to is as specific as the impact of leaving, getting divorced, experiencing a PSO or child maintenance payments, or an actuarial calculation and it being made redundant.

If you go back to 75 and your accrual is different (in terms of date and profile) that has an impact on AA and LTA (probably unkindly so), and what about those who left because the pension got rubbish all of a sudden?

It’s a disaster.

[Jambo Jet]

It would really useful if a Pension Calculator was produced to show the differences between 75/15 and pure 75 (other combinations apply too, of course!) assuming we will get a choice of reverting, or not.....

Just run the current calculator with your current expected dates. And for 75/05 only make sure you are aged 45 or older on 1 April 2012 !

[Melchett01]

It would be futile.

I don’t know if HMG will simply authorise restitution or go down the compensation route. The possibilities are mind boggling. I have no doubt that many will have been severely financially disadvantaged. The opportunity cost is a major major exercise in its own right. I suspect HMG and MoD will try to fudge it.

The granular detail you can go down to is as specific as the impact of leaving, getting divorced, experiencing a PSO or child maintenance payments, or an actuarial calculation and it being made redundant.

If you go back to 75 and your accrual is different (in terms of date and profile) that has an impact on AA and LTA (probably unkindly so), and what about those who left because the pension got rubbish all of a sudden?

It’s a disaster.

The whole AA & LTA bit concerns me quite a lot. Having just been stung with a 13k tax bill because the MOD don’t make pension input payments in a regular linear fashion, the prospect of another lump sum being arbitrarily added to pension pots again, potentially pushing peoole over the limit - again - is frankly a major concern. And it’s not particularly fair given that as individuals we have absolutely no say in our pay, pensions hours worked etc.

[SwitchMonkey]

Absolute shocker if true.

How would the system go about compensating people who made life decisions based on an offer that subsequently gets withdrawn?

Certainly can’t get a re-run of the past 5 years in the other career I would have chosen had the combined 75/15 pension deal not been offered to me.

[Countdown begins]

Just run the current calculator with your current expected dates. And for 75/05 only make sure you are aged 45 or older on 1 April 2012 !
I tried that and replacing 8 years worth of AFPS15 with AFPS05 increased my yearly EDP by just £300. I doubt that’s correct, but the second lump sum has motivated me nicely, especially as it can be cashed in early with an actuarial reduction.

[Al R]

I wonder how many left because the ‘second wind’ payment had changed. Out of interest, will reverting to 05/75 mean there is no offer of employment until 60?

[ForcesPensionSociety]

AFPS 05 benefits, if drawn before age 65, are subject to actuarial reduction I'm afraid. You can expect the pension lump sum to be reduced by almost 3% for each year it is claimed before age 65. Sorry to be a wet blanket.

[Jambo Jet]

The RAF are already short of key personnel in certain branches. Now that the 'rejoiner' brigade can leave at age 55 with a decent second pension, why would they remain in to age 60? The interesting question is those people that accepted service to 60 because the IP point moved from 55 to 60 with the 05 - 15 transition, will they be given the choice to revert back to MEOS55? Or will they just PVR at 55 and take the hit on their 05 pensions. Manning looks set to remain a challenge with this decision.

[Al R]

The RAF are already short of key personnel in certain branches. Now that the 'rejoiner' brigade can leave at age 55 with a decent second pension, why would they remain in to age 60? The interesting question is those people that accepted service to 60 because the IP point moved from 55 to 60 with the 05 - 15 transition, will they be given the choice to revert back to MEOS55? Or will they just PVR at 55 and take the hit on their 05 pensions. Manning look set to remain a challenge with this decision.

Jambo,

.. just one reason why this is going to be a rat’s nest. Another aspect of ASPS15 though, in common with all other public sector pensions of the time, is that the Scheme Normal Retirement/Benefits age was hard wired into alignment with the State Pension Age via secondary legislation.

This meant that the age at which you took benefits could shuffle to the right in concert with State Pension. Ultimately, this is all going to be another nail in the coffin of a public sector Defined Benefit (whether that’s be Final Salary or Career Average) pension scheme.

The issue most pressing will be that of Annual/Lifetime Allowance implications. It is public knowledge that I am not the loudest drum beater for the Forces Pension Society any longer, but if you are a member I would certainly be keeping them close. Service Personnel need a professional body that looks after their retirement interests. One with properly authorised and regulated trustee and professional responsibilities.

[VinRouge]

Al,

so so in short, those on AFPS75 past IPP who were forced onto 15 (despite not being given the option to leave with preserved defined benefits at IPP), are now looking at getting their pension and gratuity uplifted back to 75 levels?

If those individuals were not previously going to cross lifetime and annual limits, will they be now liable as this could be seen as increasing the imaginary, made up, non-existent and Sir Humfrey led GAD derived AFPS personal pension pot by “x” in one year?

So so in short, will people be hit with annual limits if previously under the old scheme, with an unfettled AFP’s 75 they would not?

Lots of unanswered questions - many by people who are no longer in who have access to DINs and quite frankly, I don’t trust the F@ckers to manage this correctly or in my interest now I am out.

As to the quantum of what I lost on a personal level, that now appears owed, a lump sum of 20k gratuity and around 130 quid extra per month. Thieving barstewards.

[Al R]

The variables are endless. What I will be shortly doing is writing to the Secretary of State and going on record as an interested person. The problem is, as a non expert individual, you simply don’t know what you don’t know. If there are tax issues, if those tax issues are based on restitution or reinstatement, what happens? You only have to see how the government has been crippled and beset by problems relating to NHS doctors and consultants, and the WASPI women to see that.

[Melchett01]

Al,

so so in short, those on AFPS75 past IPP who were forced onto 15 (despite not being given the option to leave with preserved defined benefits at IPP), are now looking at getting their pension and gratuity uplifted back to 75 levels?

If those individuals were not previously going to cross lifetime and annual limits, will they be now liable as this could be seen as increasing the imaginary, made up, non-existent and Sir Humfrey led GAD derived AFPS personal pension pot by “x” in one year?

So so in short, will people be hit with annual limits if previously under the old scheme, with an unfettled AFP’s 75 they would not?

Lots of unanswered questions - many by people who are no longer in who have access to DINs and quite frankly, I don’t trust the F@ckers to manage this correctly or in my interest now I am out.

As to the quantum of what I lost on a personal level, that now appears owed, a lump sum of 20k gratuity and around 130 quid extra per month. Thieving barstewards.

Vin Rouge,

That was my question to FPS when I asked if it was better to pay the tax or wait out via Scheme pays given the potential future changes. The reply that came back was effectively we just don’t know, at this stage it’s too complicated with too many unknowns.

[heights good]

On a slight side-note, as there is no 'pension pot' that has my pension contributions sitting in it, how can individuals be taxed on a lifetime allowance on something that doesn't actually exist?

[Al R]

On a slight side-note, as there is no 'pension pot' that has my pension contributions sitting in it, how can individuals be taxed on a lifetime allowance on something that doesn't actually exist?

There are a number of Benefit Crystallisation Events (BCE) which apply at the time and point you trigger one of them. It’s at that point that your ’pot’ (notional or otherwise) is calculated and a tax charge considered against it.

[VinRouge]

On a slight side-note, as there is no 'pension pot' that has my pension contributions sitting in it, how can individuals be taxed on a lifetime allowance on something that doesn't actually exist?

I'm not sure of that either. Another class action should stick it up 'em.

Its just another underhand means to effectively reduce state liabilities on previous guarantees, and it stinks. The actuarial calculations are done by a government department, so I guess marking your own homework and making the figures work is what gets you a M/O/C/KBE these days.

[Stuff]

Announcement:
Armed Forces Pensions - McCloud Update December 2019


This bulletin adds context for armed forces personnel on the pre-2015 pension scheme as a result of the McCloud judgment.
19/12/2019

Service Personnel (SP) may have read recent newspaper articles stating that all eligible* public service pension scheme members will be placed back into their pre-2015 pension scheme as a result of the McCloud judgment. This bulletin adds context for Armed Forces personnel.

The decision on remedy is yet to be decided by the employment tribunal. The government is engaged with the litigants, the employment tribunal, and representatives of all public service pension schemes to agree how the discrimination will be addressed.

MOD remuneration staff are working with HMT and other government departments to ensure that the unique nature of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme is taken into consideration in any remedy solution. Specifically, it is recognised that it is not as simple as putting everyone back into their old pension scheme. This is because some SP will be better off in the old scheme, and some better off in the new scheme. MOD will ensure all eligible SP can keep their accrued benefits.

The Employment Tribunal will agree the timings of any remedy and MOD will provide further updates as information becomes available. If you are part of the Civil Service Pensions Scheme, you can find the latest updates via the Civil Service Pensions website – McCloud judgment (https://www.civilservicepensionscheme.org.uk/members/mccloud-judgment/).



* Eligible SP are those who were in Service on 31 Mar 12 and 1 Apr 15 plus those SP who left Service before 31 Mar 12 but subsequently re-entered the pension scheme within the allotted time.

[Onceapilot]

Good post Stuff. That quote seems to post a positive outlook for all involved. I do hope that is the real outcome!

OAP

[Stuff]

When AFPS05 arrived we were all sent a chit asking us if we wanted to transfer or not. Why can't they just do the same again and this time ask if you want to revert to 75 or stay with 15? They seem to be making this sound far more complicated that it really is.

[Jambo Jet]

”Specifically, it is recognised that it is not as simple as putting everyone back into their old pension scheme. This is because some SP will be better off in the old scheme, and some better off in the new scheme. MOD will ensure all eligible SP can keep their accrued benefits.”

I read this as if we put SP back on their original pension schemes then everyone can leave at 55 without PVR and we will reintroduce the manning crisis we solved by getting everyone to sign up to 60.

[Countdown begins]

The FBU will now pursue compensation for injury to feelings and compensation for financial losses for claimants who lost money due to the changes.


My feelings were hurt.


https://www.fbu.org.uk/news/2019/12/18/firefighters-win-back-pensions-blow-government?fbclid=IwAR1EhvdJv1lyhMqtKgIoSO56mtn-llUp3u50w6F8cbz3pCQPHtqhGH-Viqg

[flyingorthopod]

When AFPS05 arrived we were all sent a chit asking us if we wanted to transfer or not. Why can't they just do the same again and this time ask if you want to revert to 75 or stay with 15? They seem to be making this sound far more complicated that it really is.

I'm sure that's what they will do, but between complex pensions and bewildering tax issues the choice won't be easy

[VinRouge]

”Specifically, it is recognised that it is not as simple as putting everyone back into their old pension scheme. This is because some SP will be better off in the old scheme, and some better off in the new scheme. MOD will ensure all eligible SP can keep their accrued benefits.”

I read this as if we put SP back on their original pension schemes then everyone can leave at 55 without PVR and we will reintroduce the manning crisis we solved by getting everyone to sign up to 60.



Manpower strat plans better get on their knees to the treasury then and sort out a decent FRI to make it people’s worth to stick around then.

[Countdown begins]

Not sure why people would now all come out at age 55? 75 especially??
on a different note though, what will happen to any money money people paid in to top up 15? It was tax efficient with no risk.
if you don’t know anything about that have a read of pathfinder from Jul last year. Plenty of info from FPS on page 6 of each mag.

[wokkamate]

The big ‘but’ here is .... would one be better off reverting back onto 75 from 15, or better to stay on 15? No one has been able to answer that so far.

(Top level PAS, 22 years on 75, expecting 14 years on 15 by the time I retire)

[Easy Street]

The big ‘but’ here is .... would one be better off reverting back onto 75 from 15, or better to stay on 15? No one has been able to answer that so far.

(Top level PAS, 22 years on 75, expecting 14 years on 15 by the time I retire)

Clearly, take professional advice if they offer you a choice of reverting. The annual allowance calculations which would be needed to assess retrospective and future tax liability on each scheme would be horrific, for one thing! But my non-professional guess is that you’re better off on the 75/15 combination. ‘Full’ 75 would only reward you for 34 of your 36 years’ service. Meanwhile the career-averaging of 15 would start from the high basic salary you were on in 2015. Seems ideal. But take professional advice!

[M1key]

It’s certainly a complex issue for many that are staying for longer and want to know what the sums are. To many, however, the sums should be quite straightforward. I have a little over 9 months left. I know what my Lump Sum and Pension are expected to be on 75/15. I don’t, however, have access to a 75 Calculator. Can someone confirm please that the workings are based on 1/47th per year of your Final Salary under the 75 Scheme? I’ll have done 16 years so will be 16/47 x Final Salary x 3 (Lump Sum) and 16/47 of Final Salary Pension. Clearly this Final Salary will depend on what the AFRB increase will be next year. Leave in Oct 2020 on an Option.

I did a little over 10.5 years on 75 and 5.5 years on 15. The difference is significant for me between the two, but can someone please validate (or not) how I’m working it out? Thanks in advance.

[Countdown begins]

Is someone who returns to 75 more likely to leave at the 55 point now, if that turns out to be the direction of flow?

[CAC Runaway]

It’s certainly a complex issue for many that are staying for longer and want to know what the sums are. To many, however, the sums should be quite straightforward. I have a little over 9 months left. I know what my Lump Sum and Pension are expected to be on 75/15. I don’t, however, have access to a 75 Calculator. Can someone confirm please that the workings are based on 1/47th per year of your Final Salary under the 75 Scheme? I’ll have done 16 years so will be 16/47 x Final Salary x 3 (Lump Sum) and 16/47 of Final Salary Pension. Clearly this Final Salary will depend on what the AFRB increase will be next year. Leave in Oct 2020 on an Option.

I did a little over 10.5 years on 75 and 5.5 years on 15. The difference is significant for me between the two, but can someone please validate (or not) how I’m working it out? Thanks in advance.
Use the Pension Calculator as you have but change your date of birth to earlier so that you qualify for the grandfather rights and would have got to stay on the 75 scheme. This will give you the simple calculation for remaining on the 75 scheme throughout. I'm out in 6 months time and the difference for me is around £5k per year if was able to remain on 75 rather than transfer to 15.

[Bob Viking]

I have done as you suggested and I see it definitely simplifies the projection.

The big problem with entering a false DoB is that it makes the lump sum commutation number completely wrong.

Would it be fair to assume that if you take maximum commutation that you can just multiply the difference between the full immediate pension and the post-commutation amount by the number of years until age 55?

If I am correct then my lump sum with maximum commutation becomes significantly larger if I were to PVR in the next few years.

BV

[downsizer]

In order to trick the calculator what was the criteria to stay on pure '75?

[CAC Runaway]

I have done as you suggested and I see it definitely simplifies the projection.

The big problem with entering a false DoB is that it makes the lump sum commutation number completely wrong.

Would it be fair to assume that if you take maximum commutation that you can just multiply the difference between the full immediate pension and the post-commutation amount by the number of years until age 55?

If I am correct then my lump sum with maximum commutation becomes significantly larger if I were to PVR in the next few years.

BV


I’m not sure you can use it this way for the commutation as your age won’t be right so the number years to 55 will be wrong etc. When I tweaked mine it had my age on leaving as beyond 55 so no option to commute was given. If you use it as a guide to what you’ll get if you leave now without commuting I think it works.

[Bob Viking]

Is there any indication as to when we will know how our pension schemes will be affected and when a revised calculator will be available?

Can I assume that, since I had 15.5 years on AFPS 75 before the switch to 15 I can just revert to the previous 75 T’s and C’s?

From what I can remember that meant full pension at 55 if you PVR’d before that age.

Clearly this change is quite a big deal and more detail is needed to inform some decision making.

BV

[VinRouge]

Is there any indication as to when we will know how our pension schemes will be affected and when a revised calculator will be available?

Can I assume that, since I had 15.5 years on AFPS 75 before the switch to 15 I can just revert to the previous 75 T’s and C’s?

From what I can remember that meant full pension at 55 if you PVR’d before that age.

Clearly this change is quite a big deal and more detail is needed to inform some decision making.

BV

I think people should get together and fight to avoid 12 month PVR and also pension abatement due PVR due to yet again more messing around with pensions T and C in the courts. People shouldn’t be penalised as a result of a decision to leave that has been brought about by another degradation in T and C that was promised wouldn’t happen.

This should have been offered last time around, it wasn’t, it should have been.

[finningleyprince]

I think people should get together and fight to avoid 12 month PVR and also pension abatement due PVR due to yet again more messing around with pensions T and C in the courts. People shouldn’t be penalised as a result of a decision to leave that has been brought about by another degradation in T and C that was promised wouldn’t happen.

This should have been offered last time around, it wasn’t, it should have been.
If it's an early exit people want then there's a solicitor in Lincoln trying to make inroads into GB's old empire. Apparently he is successful and wants that reputation.
What is staggering here is that the CMs have given in, no retention tools, no interest. The young blood, apparently, is coming more quickly than the old blood is dying. Really!!!

[Easy Street]

A 'small' problem which might force an answer to this before long: how will we be assessed for tax liabilities around the Annual Allowance when we have no idea what pension scheme we will be on at the point of retirement, and therefore have no idea how much has been added to our notional 'pot' in the tax year ending in a few months' time? And then ask the same question about past tax liabilities in every year since 2015... this is a true clusterf***. Doing anything other than 'scheme pays' and waiting to see how it pans out would be sheer madness, IMHO.

[Jambo Jet]

There is not going to be a quick fix to this. Everyone has a unique gripe with being forced onto AFPS 15 and each case is subtly different (hence why everyone’s discrimination compensation may be quite different to each other - this has not yet been broached on the thread).

As a rejoiner who is not entitled to an immediate (albeit second) pension unless I serve to retirement age (55 or 60 depending on 05 or 15) I have an interest in knowing exactly what my retirement date is and right now I do not know when that is!!! I accepted service to MEOS to align to NEM. If I hadn’t then I would not get the 15 bit of my pension until I’m 67 so I was forced to do this. But if I can go back to purely AFPS 05 terms then the retirement age should be 55 and there are rules to be followed for continuance if service beyond 55 is required; and to which there must be a mutual agreement.

The Terms of Service AP on CM page explains this!

I envisage quite a few rejoiners are in the same boat and many would probably be happy to stay in to 60, although doing so could cost over 100k in lump sum and 5 years of pension payments.

This is why I think that if SP are moved back onto 75/05 terms then they are fairly likely to want to leave at 55 and not MEOS. (And 75 pensioners more so as they cannot earn more than 37 years of contributions) This will surely affect the future numbers that manning must be relying on!

[Countdown begins]

There is not going to be a quick fix to this. Everyone has a unique gripe with being forced onto AFPS 15 and each case is subtly different (hence why everyone’s discrimination compensation may be quite different to each other - this has not yet been broached on the thread).

As a rejoiner who is not entitled to an immediate (albeit second) pension unless I serve to retirement age (55 or 60 depending on 05 or 15) I have an interest in knowing exactly what my retirement date is and right now I do not know when that is!!! I accepted service to MEOS to align to NEM. If I hadn’t then I would not get the 15 bit of my pension until I’m 67 so I was forced to do this. But if I can go back to purely AFPS 05 terms then the retirement age should be 55 and there are rules to be followed for continuance if service beyond 55 is required; and to which there must be a mutual agreement.

The Terms of Service AP on CM page explains this!

I envisage quite a few rejoiners are in the same boat and many would probably be happy to stay in to 60, although doing so could cost over 100k in lump sum and 5 years of pension payments.

This is why I think that if SP are moved back onto 75/05 terms then they are fairly likely to want to leave at 55 and not MEOS. (And 75 pensioners more so as they cannot earn more than 37 years of contributions) This will surely affect the future numbers that manning must be relying on!


when your CM is looking to jump them self it’s a dire position to be in. Rather than solely focus on recruiting, surely retention now needs to be looked at. Because I wasn’t interested in my 75 pension when I was living it up I’ve now rapidly focussed that I should retire 5 years earlier than 15 planned for me. I won’t be the only one.

[RAFEngO74to09]

Can I assume that, since I had 15.5 years on AFPS 75 before the switch to 15 I can just revert to the previous 75 T’s and C’s?

From what I can remember that meant full pension at 55 if you PVR’d before that age.





Bob,
AFPS75 T&C regarding pension and PVR was that you could PVR after 50 and before 55 and you got the pension you had earned (so slight deduction for each year not served to 55) immediately + the Terminal Bonus.

That was my main reason for electing to stay on AFPS75 and not taking the option to change to AFPS05 as I was in the long process of immigrating to the USA and was in the fortunate position of not needing to get another job if my pension was paid immediately.

As part of a much more complex plot, another reason for PVR'ing was to stay in the only post I was willing to do which was being converted to FTRS(HC). In those days (13 years ago), you had to take a 30-day timeout between RAF and FTRS(HC) service and pay the Terminal Bonus back - the pension stopped and I got paid as FTRS(HC).

When I retired from FTRS(HC) 18 months later, my AFPS75 pension started again immediately at the rate I had earned up to the point of PVR and then I had an additional small FTRS(HC) pension at RFPS05 rates for the extra 18 months payable from age 65.

Having since become a US Citizen and elected to pay tax in the USA rather than the UK under the US / UK Tax Agreement, I don't get involved in any of the changed UK tax liabilities - I mention that in case you have any intention of moving to Canada upon retirement in which case the UK / Canada Tax Agreement would be worth researching.

[Abbey Road]

Bob,
APFS75 T&C regarding pension ...

... reason for electing to stay on APFS75 ...

... my APFS75 pension ...

It's a relatively small point, RAFEngO74to09, but it is AFPS [Armed Forces Pension Scheme], not APFS. ;)

[RAFEngO74to09]

It's a relatively small point, RAFEngO74to09, but it is AFPS [Armed Forces Pension Scheme], not APFS. ;)
Thanks - amended. I must have been having flashbacks to the almost monthly annoyance of doing all the page replacement and handwritten amendments to documents from the Air Publication & Forms Store (APFS) back in the day !

[Countdown begins]

I spoke with a Fire Union rep in Carlisle last week and they are moving forward, and quickly. They have a Union.
The RAF is not taking the matter seriously, as Ben has said the priority is explaining pilots in the hold.
If you, or your staff, are waiting for a pension decision before you/ they can move forward do NOT expect a rudderless system to provide answers.
Ask your MP to ask the SoS for Defence why those that risk their lives are being held whilst people on £100,000 a year are sat pontificating about when to earn their pay. Labour MPs will especially enjoy putting inept management to task.

[Bob Viking]

At least the NHS have acknowledged the issue and are even throwing money at the problem.

I wonder when the MOD will wake up to it and collectively force the government to backtrack.

Pensions row 'making bad situation worse in NHS' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-51092492

BV

[Countdown begins]

At least the NHS have acknowledged the issue and are even throwing money at the problem.

I wonder when the MOD will wake up to it and collectively force the government to backtrack.

Pensions row 'making bad situation worse in NHS' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-51092492

BV
ive been advised by an IFA to involve my MP. If somebody focuses on this now it’s a big problem, with those that have left, those about to and those who have years left.
One of the pensions briefings recently mentioned 2025 before it’s all done. People need facts to base their lives on, 1800 days from now how many others will have left?
The crux is the RAF arse on that seat will have been replaced twice by the time we’re expecting decisions and work. The RAF needs scrutiny by MPs on this matter, as it will start to affect retention soon, and that is never a great Sun headline.

[VinRouge]

Al, do AF pensions Soc. have an iron in this fire?

I hope MoD realise we are going to come after them for the interest once the dust settles.

[Easy Street]

Until now the only reports I’d seen on the doctors’ pension issue suggested that doctors were being offered an equivalent of the AFPS ‘Scheme Pays’ arrangement as an interim measure. However that BBC link from BV states that doctors’ pension pots will be topped up by the Government at some point in future to replace any funds used for annual tax bills. I’m wary of taking journalism as gospel in such matters; does anyone know exactly what the doctors are being offered? (Google has not been my friend in this instance!)

[downsizer]

I'm mulling a PVR.....

Do we think the changes will apply to those that have already left or just those still in service...?

Weirdly this unresolved issue is keeping me IN..!!!

[Bob Viking]

My worry is that whatever MOD come up with (assuming they do offer some financial recompense) will have to be paid for at some point.

I can’t help but keep thinking the safest thing to do is cut and run.

I’m afraid my trust in the MOD started to fail back in 2010 when all the flying training students were made redundant. This latest fiasco feels like the final nail in the coffin.

I just don’t trust them not to mess about with my pension again if I stay in. And this comes from someone who always thought he’d serve until retirement age.

It would be nice to hear something, anything, to attempt to assuage the angst.

BV

[downsizer]

See I would be better off to go back to full '75 terms. So I am waiting to see if that is an option before pulling the handle....

[4everAD]

I'm in a similar position to BV, I was happy with 75 pension then due to my circumstances (25 year point when switching to 15) I was even happier as the 15 scheme really increased my pension at age 68 (£5,000 pa extra) and I'd only get slightly less per year up till then compared to 75. I'm holding out hoping that I will be given the choice to stay on 15, i don't want to go back to 75 or anything new that they come up with which will be less no doubt.
How can you plan for the future with absolutely no idea what you'll get? Might be worth going now on a pension I know and I'm happy with?

[Lima Juliet]

I'm in a similar position to BV, I was happy with 75 pension then due to my circumstances (25 year point when switching to 15) I was even happier as the 15 scheme really increased my pension at age 68 (£5,000 pa extra) and I'd only get slightly less per year up till then compared to 75. I'm holding out hoping that I will be given the choice to stay on 15, i don't want to go back to 75 or anything new that they come up with which will be less no doubt.
How can you plan for the future with absolutely no idea what you'll get? Might be worth going now on a pension I know and I'm happy with?

From what I understand, and the fact that NO DECISION HAS YET BEEN MADE, the most likely plan will be a retrospective “Offer to Transfer” just like we had in 2005. So there will be a bespoke letter to each person caught up in this with the options and then an ability to choose to go back to/stay on 75 or 05 with another option to transfer to 15. That is what is likely to take the time as those offers will need to be worked out to make sure you are not miss-sold a pension (Ombudsman territory!). Also, as 75 and 05 are closed to new entries then either Legislation will need to pass the Commons, Lords and Royal Assent to make changes or open up “mirror” 75 and 05 schemes for individuals to join. It is a total cluster legacy of the Coalition Government and will take a lot of effort to unf^ck!

[Countdown begins]

From what I understand, and the fact that NO DECISION HAS YET BEEN MADE, the most likely plan will be a retrospective “Offer to Transfer” just like we had in 2005. So there will be a bespoke letter to each person caught up in this with the options and then an ability to choose to go back to/stay on 75 or 05 with another option to transfer to 15. That is what is likely to take the time as those offers will need to be worked out to make sure you are not miss-sold a pension (Ombudsman territory!). Also, as 75 and 05 are closed to new entries then either Legislation will need to pass the Commons, Lords and Royal Assent to make changes or open up “mirror” 75 and 05 schemes for individuals to join. It is a total cluster legacy of the Coalition Government and will take a lot of effort to unf^ck!

You are a decision behind the rest of us. Re-read.
I don’t think the commons etc will vote, seeing as it was a court decision. Nobody will be joining a scheme they weren’t part of, either- so no new member of 75/ 05/ 15.
Everyone loves the Serviceman as a victim, but the fact the judges of this land fought for us means it’s a done deal.
Why do you think they were instantly able to say it will cost £4bn?
As I say read the previous threads, then google it. Nobody here is going to do your research.
Then if you’re feeling really lucky ask what your MP has heard, mine knew exactly what I meant straight away.

[VinRouge]

You are a decision behind the rest of us. Re-read.
I don’t think the commons etc will vote, seeing as it was a court decision. Nobody will be joining a scheme they weren’t part of, either- so no new member of 75/ 05/ 15.
Everyone loves the Serviceman as a victim, but the fact the judges of this land fought for us means it’s a done deal.
Why do you think they were instantly able to say it will cost £4bn?
As I say read the previous threads, then google it. Nobody here is going to do your research.
Then if you’re feeling really lucky ask what your MP has heard, mine knew exactly what I meant straight away.


The longer it is left, the bigger my lost investment gains claim will get.

By all means, MoD can drag their heels on this, but our pound of flesh will get collectively bigger by the week.

[Jambo Jet]

It’s not as simple as a choice to return to previous pension or transfer to 15. People have made life choices on the back of the migration to 15. Whether that be to leave because of erosion of benefits or to allign to NEM and serve to 60, this was done in good faith and now the goalposts are about to change.

If you have recently accepted PAS then you have agreed to serve to 60, however reverting to 75 or 05 now means you can leave at 55 with a PVR penalty on 75, or not with 05.

None-the-less with a reverted AFPS retirement age of 55 then service beyond that date is now
on continuance terms and not NEM and will need to be renegotiated if you want to do so. Otherwise 55 is your new retirement date and I guess it will be even if a ROS for a training course extends beyond. The AP says an ROS can not extend beyond retirement date

[Lima Juliet]

You are a decision behind the rest of us. Re-read.
I don’t think the commons etc will vote, seeing as it was a court decision. Nobody will be joining a scheme they weren’t part of, either- so no new member of 75/ 05/ 15.
Everyone loves the Serviceman as a victim, but the fact the judges of this land fought for us means it’s a done deal.
Why do you think they were instantly able to say it will cost £4bn?
As I say read the previous threads, then google it. Nobody here is going to do your research.
Then if you’re feeling really lucky ask what your MP has heard, mine knew exactly what I meant straight away.

My MP is pretty useless to be honest, spending most of their time locally whinging about HS2. But have you actually bothered to speak to the Tri-Service Pay and Pension Policy people to ask their current thoughts on the matter? Because, I have...

You also seem to have failed to grasp that Armed Forces Pensions are UK Law and so they have to go through the Commons, Lords and Royal Assent if you want to make changes. There is no other option in our Constitution as far as I am aware..

[Bob Viking]

You can’t just leave us hanging. What did the SPPP say? Anything useful?

BV

[Lima Juliet]

You can’t just leave us hanging. What did the SPPP say? Anything useful?

BV

Pretty much what I said above. No decision has been made but the current thinking is it will be fixed via an OTT as I explained - and I have asked twice now! Once in private and once at a remuneration presentation inside the last 3 months.

[Countdown begins]

As the pension schemes exist I don’t believe you are correct. It matters not, the judges are our top cover, and they’ve beaten UK law.
I haven’t sat at desk top level, no. Perhaps rank precludes that. Again, with rank as a barrier, and the KNOWLEDGE that whoever I could talk to won’t see the problem through( sound familiar?) I will leave it to my MP, who can go direct to the SoS.
What is not being gripped here is that people are making assumptions on family life and careers without the real facts being presented, yet the other schemes are keeping their people informed. If someone finds the hole, a solicitor is going to smell £££. It would be a lot easier if the MOD gave the problem to professionals and not risk inevitable legal action..... which will be heard by the very judiciary that won this for us.
it requires grown-up thinking, not a half baked arrogant response. Trust is hard to earn, easy to lose....

[Bob Viking]

Please excuse my thickness but what is an OTT?

I am not in a position to attend any presentations and am completely in the dark about the whole issue.

BV

[PPRuNeUser0211]

Please excuse my thickness but what is an OTT?

I am not in a position to attend any presentations and am completely in the dark about the whole issue.

BV
BV - I'm ill informed as well but I think Offer To Transfer - i.e. would you like to move back or stay on your current scheme.

As to the above point about UK law, I believe that the point being made is that the configuration of AFPS is a matter for UK law, so even though the legal precedent may have been set for change (judges, fire fighters etc), that change will take considerable effort to execute in law. Correct me if I'm wrong anyone!

[Bob Viking]

Of course. I was being thick.

For anyone who can remember AFPS 75 can you give me a quick heads up of the benefits of leaving on that vice AFPS 75/15?

I had 15.5 years AFPS75 before the transfer. So basically all of it.

If I were to leave within a year or two (21-22 years of service and currently PAS) I’m guessing the big difference would be that the full pension would kick in at 55 instead of 68?

What would it do to the lump sum?

For once I actually wish I’d been able to attend a presentation!

BV

[RandomBlah]

Of course. I was being thick.

For anyone who can remember AFPS 75 can you give me a quick heads up of the benefits of leaving on that vice AFPS 75/15?

I had 15.5 years AFPS75 before the transfer. So basically all of it.

If I were to leave within a year or two (21-22 years of service and currently PAS) I’m guessing the big difference would be that the full pension would kick in at 55 instead of 68?

What would it do to the lump sum?

For once I actually wish I’d been able to attend a presentation!

BV
Hello BV,

I also have 15.5 years 75 with the remainder on 15. A useful comparison here is to run your numbers on the pension calculator and then compare to the AFPS 75 pension codes that can be found online (just Google it) you will be able to see what 21/22 years of 75 will give you on leaving with the gratuity being x 3 this amount.

[RAFEngO74to09]

BV: see PM + my #57

[Just This Once...]

For anyone who can remember AFPS 75 can you give me a quick heads up of the benefits of leaving on that vice AFPS 75/15?

What would it do to the lump sum?

BV
Bob Viking

2019 Rates:

22 years AFPS75 = 17,760.00 pa
+
6 years of PAS supplements = 2,411.10 pa

Total = 20,171.19 pa

Lump sum = 60,513.57 pa

Both totals above are without any commutation adjustment / enhancement.

NB that there are many flaws in the AFPS75 system with PAS. The pension tables and legislation were not fully completed for PA Spine, despite the promises over many years that these would be fixed in due course. The AFPS15 rollout effectively closed the AFPS75 scheme and the MoD took the view that it would not be updated further, leaving the errors and omissions cast-in-stone. This left some of the tables listing the defunct Specialist Aircrew Spine (gone since 2015 when the last 4 remaining spec aircrew branch officers were moved onto PAS for the AFPS15 rollout) rather than the more recent PA Spine.

The MoD have taken the view that for these tables, including service attributable and non-attributable invaliding, that the absence of a specific table for PAS means that the individual reverts to their base rank for pension purposes. There is a further wrinkle in that in some cases you may fall out of the PA system onto Spec Aircrew terms (eg ToS restrictions), a spine that no longer exists but for which tables are published and updated.

The MoD's reluctance to reopen the AFPS75 legislation has lead to a few interesting aircrew-specific pension cases. Following a helicopter crash a flt lt (PAS, previously Spec Aircrew) was medically discharged - his 'enhanced' medical pension was actually a massive cut from his normal PAS pension as it was calculated from a basic flt lt salary. He was given the opportunity to 'retire' normally to keep his PAS pension but this brought about other unintended consequences. He was not given the option to revert to his previous Spec Aircrew terms either. Others have not had this opportunity to game the system due to the severity of their injuries and have found their PAS pension removed on medical discharge.

The number of aircrew medically discharged is small and for those on PAS terms the number is smaller still, but those who deserve the best from their pension have been poorly served. The MoD's arguments over AFPS75 terms being frozen since 2015 have clearly collapsed since the court case and it is difficult to see how the MoD can avoid updating the scheme. No doubt they will drag their heels for as long as possible though.

Pensions are complicated so always seek professional advice. Regrettably actually finding someone who understands a brace of armed forces pensions specific for aircrew, Spec Aircrew, PA Spine, re-joiners, FTRS et al is remarkably difficult, if not impossible. So treat my numbers above with extreme caution.

[just another jocky]

Pensions are complicated so always seek professional advice. Regrettably actually finding someone who understands a brace of armed forces pensions specific for aircrew, Spec Aircrew, PA Spine, re-joiners, FTRS et al is remarkably difficult, if not impossible. So treat my numbers above with extreme caution.

I thought was what the Forces Pension Society was for???

I do need to contact them to ask the implications of the recent govt decision and whether it affects me (05 PA, moved onto 15 for 3 years then retired into FTRS back onto 15). If there's an offer to go back to 05 for that last 3 year period as a Regular, is it better?

[ForcesPensionSociety]

You need to wait to see what they are proposing before you can judge the implications. I do know that MOD staff are working hard on this and we just need to be patient I'm afraid.

[VinRouge]

You need to wait to see what they are proposing before you can judge the implications. I do know that MOD staff are working hard on this and we just need to be patient I'm afraid.

Is that what the FBU and NHS unions are doing, or are they gloves off, driving for the best deal for their membership?

Bearing in mind the potential wins and losses for AFPS members, I would have expected a vocal and visible PR campaign to keep MoDs feet to the fire on this. All we ha be had is silence and requoting of articles. As an AFPS retiree, I’ve not been given access to the multiple DIN and briefing videos. I haven’t received any mail correspondence from MoD or the Veterans people in Glasgow.

This affects all of us, not just serving personnel and AF Pension Society need to act as that bridge. There needs to be a update newsletter pushed out on a repeated basis, focussed on where we are, where we think it’s going and most importantly, what exactly the pensions society are doing with our membership fee to lobby for the best possible deal in the shortest possible timeframe. I suspect MoD are facing class action if people aren’t hearing the right music in the right timeframe. I and many others are absolutely furious about the original meddling with pensions and now how we continue to be treated.

if MoD have capacity issues, it’s not my/our problem. We served, have given our best when it counted and we are now being let down. If there is any evidence of dragging of heels to get the seniors over the retirement line, it needs to be exposed. Government F@cked it, they need to increase resource to fix it.

[Jambo Jet]

Is that what the FBU and NHS unions are doing, or are they gloves off, driving for the best deal for their membership?

Bearing in mind the potential wins and losses for AFPS members, I would have expected a vocal and visible PR campaign to keep MoDs feet to the fire on this. All we ha be had is silence and requoting of articles. As an AFPS retiree, I’ve not been given access to the multiple DIN and briefing videos. I haven’t received any mail correspondence from MoD or the Veterans people in Glasgow.

This affects all of us, not just serving personnel and AF Pension Society need to act as that bridge. There needs to be a update newsletter pushed out on a repeated basis, focussed on where we are, where we think it’s going and most importantly, what exactly the pensions society are doing with our membership fee to lobby for the best possible deal in the shortest possible timeframe. I suspect MoD are facing class action if people aren’t hearing the right music in the right timeframe. I and many others are absolutely furious about how we have been and continue to be treated.

if MoD have capacity issues, it’s not my/our problem. We served, have our best when it counted and we are now being let down. If there is any evidence of dragging of heels to get the seniors over the retirement line, it needs to be exposed. Government F@cked it, they need to increase resource to fix it.

Well said that man. Otherwise what are we paying £40/yr each for?

Why Forces Pension Society exists (https://forcespensionsociety.org/about-us/why-we-exist/)

[Just This Once...]

I thought was what the Forces Pension Society was for???


Not really. The Forces Pension Society are pretty good at informing individuals as to what the rules are but when it comes to omissions or issues with the pension schemes they are little more than interested bystanders - they will not intervene or help members who find themselves caught in issues even when those individuals are poorly placed to fight their own cases.

The FPS advice with the PAS medical pension was:

The MOD have indicated that they will not readdress any issues with the 75 scheme. It is our understanding that in terms of a medical pension on PAS, there is no consideration given to the higher pay when calculating. I suggest raising the query with Veterans UK and if you would be so kind, sharing any response gained.

As you would expect, Veterans UK just repeated its position.

For those who transferred from Spec Aircrew, either by choice or policy direction, to PAS are probably unaware that they gave-up the enhanced medical pension awarded to Spec Aircrew. Indeed, most understood the change was positive to their pension with pay & pension decoupled from rank, not a potential negative one. Even a non-aircrew Army captain (LE) gets a higher medical pension than a top band PAS pilot.

One hopes that with the wider legal reversal from the 2015 position MoD will be forced to align the '75 scheme with the more modern pay spines and terms of service. Until then, the MoD's own failure to keep pension tables up-to-date will be held against the individual rather than the MoD.

The Forces Pension Society is just another vehicle to give service or ex-service personnel the bad news, even if they think it may be unfair or unjust. We are on our own.

[VinRouge]

Not really. The Forces Pension Society are pretty good at informing individuals as to what the rules are but when it comes to omissions or issues with the pension schemes they are little more than interested bystanders - they will not intervene or help members who find themselves caught in issues even when those individuals are poorly placed to fight their own cases.

The FPS advice with the PAS medical pension was:



As you would expect, Veterans UK just repeated its position.

For those who transferred from Spec Aircrew, either by choice or policy direction, to PAS are probably unaware that they gave-up the enhance medical pension awarded to Spec Aircrew. Indeed, most understood the change was positive to their pension with pay & pension decoupled from rank, not a potential negative one. Even a non-aircrew Army captain (LE) gets a higher medical pension than a top band PAS pilot.

One hopes that with the wider legal reversal from the 2015 position MoD will be forced to align the '75 scheme with the more modern pay spines and terms of service. Until then, the MoD's own failure to keep pension tables up-to-date will be held against the individual rather than the MoD.

The Forces Pension Society is just another vehicle to give service or ex-service personnel the bad news, even if they think it may be unfair or unjust. We are on our own.

That doesn’t align with their stated mandate though. The one you get sent when you decide to join.

Guess it’s time to get together and Lawyer Up then.

[Just This Once...]

Well said that man. Otherwise what are we paying £40/yr each for?

Why Forces Pension Society exists (https://forcespensionsociety.org/about-us/why-we-exist/)

Jambo Jet

I hear you but for whatever reason the FPS did not get behind the campaign regarding the 2015 pension changes and actively cast doubt on any read-across to the Armed Forces.

Even 12 months ago the FPS's position was far from supportive:

We have received a number of comments which rest on the assumption that we have been treated in the same way as the judges and the firefighters. That is not so.

The new schemes adopted across the public sector in 2015 were very different for each profession, as were the transitional arrangements for each scheme. No one has challenged the right of the Government to introduce new schemes, they have simply challenged the transitional arrangements in those particular cases – and in the fire fighters’ case it is perhaps noteworthy that these were more generous to older members than were the Armed Forces transitional arrangements and that this generosity came at the expense of the new scheme.

Having previously sought advice on this we were not and still are not convinced that the firefighters results read across to the Armed Forces. That is why we are monitoring the situation – in common with many other public service unions and representatives. Once the smoke begins to clear we will re-evaluate and take further legal advice – and will decide what we do in the light of the final outcome, the Government’s resulting solution and what we think will achieve the best results for the whole Armed Forces community.

That is the sensible thing to do; we are a self-funding organisation and we are not going to empty our coffers on what could very well be an ill-founded campaign.

[VinRouge]

Well one hopes that “once the dust settles”, they ballot membership to see if people would be interested in creating a legal fund to challenge government and ensure the membership get a fair outcome. Sitting back and cowtowing the line isn’t in our collective membership interests.

[downsizer]

As an AFPS retiree, I’ve not been given access to the multiple DIN and briefing videos. I haven’t received any mail correspondence from MoD or the Veterans people in Glasgow.

Mate I was told at a briefing I was at, and it's all rumour of course, that if you are out then nothing will be done. It's only going to be "fixed" for those still in.

[VinRouge]

Mate I was told at a briefing I was at, and it's all rumour of course, that if you are out then nothing will be done. It's only going to be "fixed" for those still in.

So, despite the original change being potentially illegal, in terms of discrimination, there will be no uplift to restore benefits as was to the level it would have been if I had not been potentially illegally discriminated against?That isnt what is stated via Hansard.

https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2019-07-15/HCWS1725/

interestingly enough, the language differed somewhat between what we are being told and what has been legally agreed.

Also interesting to note that the FBU are additionally seeking damages for their members due to the impact of the previous illegal discrimination.

This is exactly why we need to receive more information from the pensions society. Despite the ruling, there is no information available to decide on a course of action. Standing by to get screwed over whilst other public sector areas have full union support to push for their membership doesn’t wash.

[Just This Once...]

It's only going to be "fixed" for those still in.

I heard the same but found it unfathomable as no date or reason was given.

As for the dates, were we counted as 'still in' when the first tribunal sat?

Or still in when the first tribunal decided against the Government - ie Jan 2017?

Or the first appeal - Jan 2018?

Or some arbitrary date in the future?

I was still in for the judicial rulings against the government, but have since left. Am I 'still in' for the purposes of the pension change and who gets to decide that those immediately impacted by the changes are not going to be offered a choice?

It is all very odd.

[downsizer]

So, despite the original change being potentially illegal, in terms of discrimination, there will be no uplift to restore benefits as was to the level it would have been if I had not been potentially illegally discriminated against?That isnt what is stated via Hansard.

https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2019-07-15/HCWS1725/

interestingly enough, the language differed somewhat between what we are being told and what has been legally agreed.

Also interesting to note that the FBU are additionally seeking damages for their members due to the impact of the previous illegal discrimination.

This is exactly why we need to receive more information from the pensions society. Despite the ruling, there is no information available to decide on a course of action. Standing by to get screwed over whilst other public sector areas have full union support to push for their membership doesn’t wash.

I can only go off what I heard mate. They were categorical that those that had left between '15 and the present wouldn't get fixed. Whatever the fix may be. Take it with a pinch of salt. They could of course be using that line to keep people in.

And in my case it works because although I plan to PVR, I would be better off on full '75 rather than the mix of 75/15, so I plan to wait to see the outcomes.

[downsizer]

I heard the same but found it unfathomable as no date or reason was given.

As for the dates, were we counted as 'still in' when the first tribunal sat?

Or still in when the first tribunal decided against the Government - ie Jan 2017?

Or the first appeal - Jan 2018?

Or some arbitrary date in the future?

I was still in for the judicial rulings against the government, but have since left. Am I 'still in' for the purposes of the pension change and who gets to decide that those immediately impacted by the changes are not going to be offered a choice?

It is all very odd.

As it was explained to me, and I caveat that anyone who fully believes any of these propaganda briefs is foolish, anyone who has left between the change coming in in 15 and the present day won't get fixed. The suggestion between the lines was that for those out, it would be too difficult.

[Just This Once...]

downsizer
I don't doubt what you and others heard, or the willingness for the MoD to try something really stupid. Thankfully we have an unchallenged and final judgement in that all of us that were forced on to AFPS15 from a previous scheme were subject of an 'unlawful' act of discrimination. Not sure how the MoD could possibly justify not correcting the pensions of all those subject to the unlawful act.

My take on this is simple, the forced move on to AFPS15 terms did not happen. The MoD have already had fun correcting my pension numerous times due to their errors, omissions and the impact of the delayed pay rises on pensionable salary. I suspect this will be yet-another-change in due course.

[VinRouge]

I can only go off what I heard mate. They were categorical that those that had left between '15 and the present wouldn't get fixed. Whatever the fix may be. Take it with a pinch of salt. They could of course be using that line to keep people in.

And in my case it works because although I plan to PVR, I would be better off on full '75 rather than the mix of 75/15, so I plan to wait to see the outcomes.
VMT for the info. My thoughts with retention are allied to yours. Was this a verbal brief or has MoD had the audacity to commit this to writing? (PM welcome)

It cost FBU 495K to set a massive legal precedent. I bet you could crowdfund that in under a month. Personal losses due to 15’s illegal introduction add up to over 150K alone.

[Bob Viking]

Maybe we all should have voted for a Corbyn government. He was going to find 50 odd billion for the WASPI women. A mere 4 billion for a few public sector pensions would have been easy.

BV

[simonpo]

As it was explained to me, and I caveat that anyone who fully believes any of these propaganda briefs is foolish, anyone who has left between the change coming in in 15 and the present day won't get fixed. The suggestion between the lines was that for those out, it would be too difficult.

If that is truly what they are saying then the MOD better prepared to be laughed out of court. I’m no legal expert but I don’t think the excuse of “it’s too difficult” would go down very well in front of a judge!

and do the MOD think that the many thousands of us that have left will just shrug our shoulders and walk away because it’s too difficult! I think the next few years will be interesting!

Now where do I sign up to the group lawsuit for compensation from all this mess!

[downsizer]

VMT for the info. My thoughts with retention are allied to yours. Was this a verbal brief or has MoD had the audacity to commit this to writing? (PM welcome)

It cost FBU 495K to set a massive legal precedent. I bet you could crowdfund that in under a month. Personal losses due to 15’s illegal introduction add up to over 150K alone.

This conversation took place after the verbal brief when I corned the Wing Co and asked him direct, explaining my circumstance. His advice was to hold fire for the reasons I gave...make of that what you will, but I don't trust them at all not to pull that.

[M1key]

Firstly, it’s fantastic, but not unexpected, that this issue will “eventually“ be resolved. I haven’t left yet, but have taken my option and leave as a Regular in a little over 8 months after 16 years. I know what I would have received with a 16 year pension because the figures are available via the Pension Tables online and I can use the online calculator to work out the currently expected figure (both Lump Sum and Pension).

The system acts as though this wasn’t predictable, yet many of us predicted in 2014 that the changes were not Legal ones.

Is there anyone actually using a solicitor to fight for their case? I ask because, instead of doing my own thing with my own solicitor, I’d be willing to fight for recompense as soon as practicable instead of waiting for an indeterminate period of time; it’s un my interest to do so.

For info, the difference for me is over 21K Lump Sum and 7-8K per year on my pension; that’s worth fighting for right?

Finally, I find it difficult to believe that those who have left already are not going to be recompensed. What date applies?

[ForcesPensionSociety]

The MOD video at link rather suggests that people who have left would not miss out on any remedy arrived at:

https://forcespensionsociety.org/news/an-update-on-the-mccloud-judgement/

[VinRouge]

The MOD video at link rather suggests that people who have left would not miss out on any remedy arrived at:

https://forcespensionsociety.org/news/an-update-on-the-mccloud koi-judgement/ (https://forcespensionsociety.org/news/an-update-on-the-mccloud-judgement/)


chaps, unfortunately, suggestions are not good enough. I think what is sought is legal advice.

With the significant sums of money involved, we need someone to formally find out the background to why multiple people have been told that those now in receipt of AFPS are not going to be considered. If people in service are being deceived as a result of the complete retention car crash that is going to result from further meddling, that is one thing. May I suggest that by not informing these individuals that the advice they have been given is wrong, in fact means their best interests are not being respected?

However, if there is ANY risk that MoD May be taking a line separate to every other public sector body, we need to know so this position can be fought collectively. Pensions society could easily collect extra membership monies specifically for this entire situation, not just for leavers, in order to cover additional legal expenses. There is no need to burn the cash pot. FBU covered their legal action in under 500k, which set a massive precedent. Pensions Society could do it for far less and return a far better deal for their membership than will be by sitting back and waiting for “The Dust to Settle”. I have very little faith in MoD to go for anything else than the pound shop option when we should be pushing for Waitrose.

[downsizer]

Latest update on MoDNET.....

Hurry up and wait.

Though crew room gossip from the guy shagging the cleaner says announcement in April. YMMV.

[FJ2ME]

Any decision to limit restorative action to those still serving would contravene the appeal court hearing and would be laughed out of court. But the idea that the organisation that came up with such a blatantly unfair compulsory change in the first place wouldn’t attempt to renege on their responsibilities with an equally naive and ill-researched course of action is not a surprise either. One thing that is a fact is that this is going to take years to sort out not weeks. My supposition is that the bean counters will work out what this potentially costs them, and then they will make an offer to individuals to settle for around 25-35% of what they are owed, in return for a signature stating that is the end of the matter. Many fools who are already resigned to the fact their pension is burned will welcome the injection of funds for a new Discovery Sport and take the money and leave it at that. Not only selling themselves short but converting pension benefit into a one-time purchase or debt-relief gift. Personally, I know roughly what APFS cost me, based on a life expectancy of 85, and if the initial offer is £1 less than my sums then it will be rejected and I’ll see them in court.

Being subject to incompetence and mediocrity at work is one thing, having it rob you of pension benefits in your old age is quite another. And don’t forget by the time I come to claim this pension I will likely as not have to self-fund any social care I might need. So I want my money. They’ve had their service and a court has reminded them of their financial commitments. Now they must meet them.

[VinRouge]

I and many others will join you. If the compensation amount doesn’t cover lost interest and further compensation at a reasonable rate, and I can demonstrate the entirety of my gratuity and payments have gone paying off mortgage or are currently earning 6%,then I won’t settle.

[Chauderon]

From FPS:The remedy to the ‘McCloud case’, enters a key phase over the coming weeks.

Our CE, Neil Marshall, will be attending the technical discussions in the Ministry of Defence ahead of a full public consultation scheduled for late Spring/early Summer.

The whole purpose is to ensure that the remedy agreed is appropriate, fair to those discriminated against and covers the entire ‘affected population’; serving and veterans.

Please keep reading the updates on our website and social media and accept that this is incredibly complex, and will take time but it is our 2020 main effort and a solution has to be found.

— — — —

I’m currently down ~ £15K from being forced out of AFPS 75. Should the remedy not be satisfactory, I’m in on the group legal action.

[Vortex Hoop]

#metoo. (But this time it means something more concrete!)

I was forced onto AFPS 15 on 1 April 2015 like everyone else and left at the 38 point 7 months later. So I calculate that is a 2% drop in my AFPS 75 pension earnings.

Let's hope veterans are not shafted.

[weemonkey]

could always be worse you know...

I've had my rather ltd 'erks pension trimmed by some 100 per month due to the diligence (of the now EX snp fiscal giant and grooming nonce) ensuring that I personally help contribute to the international stateswoman Effies continental jaunts with her French lady companion..black eye and all. Apparently.

[Asturias56]

could always be worse you know...

I've had my rather ltd 'erks pension trimmed by some 100 per month due to the diligence (of the now EX snp fiscal giant and grooming nonce) ensuring that I personally help contribute to the international stateswoman Effies continental jaunts with her French lady companion..black eye and all. Apparently.

can you translate into English please???

[weemonkey]

can you translate into English please???

Certainly.

The @stard scottish sep gov'ment have raided wm's kitty to the tune mentioned to fund their international jamboneering etc.

Taxation on pension over and above HM Treasury's take.

I am, of course, etc,etc....

[Jambo Jet]

An update from the MOD/FPS MOD - FPS Update (https://forcespensionsociety.org/2020/02/mccloud-and-armed-forces-pensions-update-on-technical-discussions/)

Seems that there is to be a public consultation !

"(3) provides the Member with the full understanding and opportunity to make informed decisions about their financial future."

This surely must mean everyone will get a Pension forecast based on AFPS15 and AFPS (legacy) for them to make a decision from including the consequences of reversion or remaining on 15

[flyingkeyboard]

An update from the MOD/FPS MOD - FPS Update (https://forcespensionsociety.org/2020/02/mccloud-and-armed-forces-pensions-update-on-technical-discussions/)

Seems that there is to be a public consultation !

"(3) provides the Member with the full understanding and opportunity to make informed decisions about their financial future."

This surely must mean everyone will get a Pension forecast based on AFPS15 and AFPS (legacy) for them to make a decision from including the consequences of reversion or remaining on 15

Looks that way. Whatever information they provide will have to be watertight to ensure that there is no comeback in years to come. What a cluster of a situation...

[flyingorthopod]

Will the forecast explain what my choice will do to my tax bill?

[VinRouge]

Will the forecast explain what my choice will do to my tax bill?


Be interested to see, particularly with rumoured changes to tax relief on pensions in discussion.

In respect of The Armed Forces Pension Society, jolly good show in looking out for our interests.

As for anyone who has proposed previously to serving members that Veterans won’t be being considered (to prevent a retention issue that needs to be fixed with a meaty FRI) - poor form.

[Chauderon]

Another jolly good show - the firemen and FBU for bringing the McCloud case. If I can revert to AFPS 75 (as I always wanted to remain on), this will be a very significant lump sum and uplift in pension for life. Thank you very much firefighters for effectively representing those without representation.

[Countdown begins]

If you take a ( so far undecided) option to rejoin 75 are you more less likely to leave at 55?
same question if you can return to 05.
Same question to a 75/15 and 05/15 split.
it will present an interesting problem to the planners, and so leaves their jobs even more difficult to forecast. Not that they will be in their present roles to see in the changes.
I see a slow car crash coming, nobody is thinking.

[Jambo Jet]

If you take a ( so far undecided) option to rejoin 75 are you more less likely to leave at 55?
same question if you can return to 05.
Same question to a 75/15 and 05/15 split.
it will present an interesting problem to the planners, and so leaves their jobs even more difficult to forecast. Not that they will be in their present roles to see in the changes.
I see a slow car crash coming, nobody is thinking.

In a nutshell - Yes more likely!

On AFPS05 (or 75) the retirement age is 55. The MOD knew this and hence there was an offer to allign to the NEM so that your service would qualify for a full pension at retirement age - that was an offer to serve to 60 (AFPS15's retirement age) if you had been assimilated after your initial contract.

It didn’t mean you couldn’t leave at 55, but if you did only the legacy part of your pension would be payable at 55. The AFPS15 part would now not be paid until state pension age unless you opted to actuarially commute some of this pension and thus receive a much smaller overall payout.

I think the airships have to look closer at this.... having realised that forcing SP on to 15 meant financial disadvantage if they retired at 55, NEM allignment was the solution. On reversion back to legacy pension schemes negates the need for such NEM allignment, in fact the AP states that service beyond retirement age (continuance) is bespoke to each concerned SP and will be considered on a case by case basis - therefore I think any SP reverting to previous legacy pension TOS who wishes to serve to 60 will not be prevented from doing so and will even be strongly encouraged to do so (Your car crash scenario if they all leave at 55!).

However, those persons who revert must be able to leave at 55 because to be forced to serve to 60 even after aligning under the NEM offer (and I can imagine being told NEM allignment was a choice) would I think be adding to the discrimination suffered by being forced onto AFPS 15 in the first place

[downsizer]

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/867267/20200212-AF_REM-MAJOR_MCCLOUD_UPDATE-V3-O_-_11.2.20_SW.pdf

[Chauderon]

Thank you downsizer for posting that.

There they are, the words I've been waiting to read!:

"This will take time to process, but we are committed to ensuring that all members are treated equally and are able to choose to receive benefits from either their old/legacy scheme (Armed Forces Pension Scheme (AFPS) 75, AFPS 05, FTRS 97, RFPS 2005 or NRPS) or new/reformed (AFPS 15) scheme"

Questions remaining now are (1) when and (2) will it really be done fairly, for example: Statutory interest of 8% for late payment? Tax free status of gratuity? Tax liability for those now non-resident in UK and receiving delayed pension income?

[flyingorthopod]

All going to be very confusing and probably involve a big colour coded spreadsheet.

So, if you're on 75/15 but on full career commission - will they give you the chance to go on to 05/15 and collect my bonuses?*



*no.

[VinRouge]

Thank you downsizer for posting that.

Questions remaining now are (1) when and (2) will it really be done fairly, for example: Statutory interest of 8% for late payment? Tax free status of gratuity? Tax liability for those now non-resident in UK and receiving delayed pension income?

if it’s any later than any changes to taxation on pension contributions, im personally going for what ever change is made on pension relief. I would have invested it pre pension tax change, as I did with the gratuity and my pension since. Not my issue this will have been changed back after rumoured pensions tax changes have come in.

that could be a 20% charge imho.

[finningleyprince]

It's definitely an interesting development, a step forward.

It only dawned on me yesterday why not everyone was offered MEOS automatically in what is supposed to be a retention positive Force. It has been used as a further filter/ boarding process for some, whilst many were just placed on it carte blanche. Possibly dirty tricks, possibly an effort to maintain a two tier system. If you are not a rejoiner/ late starter, and have not been offered it, then it's quite likely you need to consider why.

In the grand scheme of things, if I get my choice (05) then whatever retention leverage they have attempted, that I never knew about, has failed.

If you are fed straw, then you will fight as a donkey.

[M1key]

Some positive news for those affected.

https://forcespensionsociety.org/2020/03/mccloud-update-written-statement-from-the-economic-secretary-to-the-treasury/

#stayhome
#protectthenhs
#savelives

[Common_Sense]

Anyone heard any updates since March?

[Just This Once...]

Only this 'pause' after the recent recalculation of post-15 pensions that didn't go in the direction that the government had hoped, especially when it tipped the cost control calculation scales so heavily in its favour in the enabling legislation:On 27 April this article (https://www.professionalpensions.com/news/4014464/updated-firefighters-launch-fresh-legal-battle-government-pension-benefits-delay) was published by Professional Pensions regarding the Fire Brigades Union’s (FBU) latest legal action (https://www.fbu.org.uk/news/2020/04/24/firefighters-take-government-court-over-pension-%E2%80%98robbery%E2%80%99) against the Government relating to pension benefits delays. The main issues are:

The FBU and other unions are challenging the “pause” to the implementation of the public sector pension scheme ‘cost control’ exercise which would have triggered an improvement in some, mainly 2015 Scheme benefits or a reduction in employee contributions (or both), and
the Government’s assertion that the continuation of this “pause” is appropriate while discussions on how to do address the McCloud discrimination continue.

Last month, the Government said it would provide an update on the ‘cost control’ mechanism alongside its McCloud public consultation in the coming months (HCWS 187, 25 March 2020 (https://www.parliament.uk/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2020-03-25/HCWS187)).

McCloud and cost control mechanisms are both complex issues and our CE has been fully involved in the McCloud technical discussions with the MoD. Improved benefits for firefighters after the December 2018 court win were delayed in January last year. Chief secretary to the Treasury Liz Truss said the pause would remain in place until the government digested the consequences of a different case relating to age discrimination, brought by firefighter members of the pre-2015 schemes, which the government also lost.

The FBU has called the delay an excuse for the government to pass on the cost of "a number of unlawful discrimination cases". By incorporating these extra costs, the FBU and unions argue the government could then claim that the cost of the scheme had risen above predetermined levels, therefore reducing employee benefits.

"Ministers know full well that they are in breach of the regulations which clearly state that if the cost of financing the scheme drops, then the benefits should be passed onto members."

In addition to firefighters, the outcome of the case could also affect pension schemes members working in local government, the NHS, teachers, police, armed forces and civil servants who joined on or after the start of the 2012/13 financial year.

Wrack added: "Refusing to accept this and pausing the process amounts to a dirty trick which now means many of those in the scheme will have had their improvements withheld for over a year - worst still is that this robbery has been carried out by millionaire ministers.

As we all expected, the government is most eager to implement changes that negatively impact the value of public sector pension, but not the other way around. The arbitrary linking of the government-triggered (and legally dubious) 'pause' on one issue as justification to slow the implementation of a court-ordered resolution of another is more than a little perverse.

With a government that so readily breaches its own legislation and defers implementation of legal judgements there is very little hope of things moving forward.

[ForcesPensionSociety]

Anyone heard any updates since March?


Nothing yet ... but MOD's work will not have been helped by the necessary COVID-19 restrictions.The next stage is a comprehensive public consultation this summer although the dates have not yet been published by HMT.

Those in service should keep an eye on MODNet for updates. Other readers, including in service personnel, can access our website for updates - we post as soon as we have news.

[Common_Sense]

Any update?

[ForcesPensionSociety]

Our understanding is that a consultation is planned for late summer/early autumn.

[ForcesPensionSociety]

Update as promised:

https://forcespensionsociety.org/2020/07/government-announces-mccloud-public-consultation/

[downsizer]

Update as promised:

https://forcespensionsociety.org/2020/07/government-announces-mccloud-public-consultation/

So after reading that, regardless of your decision to go back to '75 or stay on '15, if you are still in at April 2022 you go to the '15 scheme? Have I got that correct?

[Countdown begins]

I see the same
Choose whatever pension you want for now, but a date in 2022, tough luck. This time there’s no age connection.
RoS on PAS will cripple some now, another trawler sized net to keep BTA content.
Everyone is different, this seems more of the same. It straightens out those that stayed on 05 and subsequently got extended but then stayed on 05,’ the winners’.
Lots to hear on this I think, good luck!

[Bob Viking]

I haven’t read all the details yet but I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again.

Take away my accrued pension benefits and I have no real reason to stay. Even in the current climate.

BV

[Countdown begins]

Bob, it mentions what’s accrued stays yours. It seems that those due to retire by 22 keep their choice of pension, those after don’t and will have to take 15. Same as before, but this time not an age based decision. More of the same, it’s just a date not an age.

[Bob Viking]

Ah, I see. So there is no option to return to a pure AFPS 75 pension then? Basically a case of ‘as you were’.

BV

[Countdown begins]

I think that’s the first bit, and that you can. Come the day in 2022 then whether you did or didn’t revert back is irrelevant, you are going to Pens15, but with perhaps 2 extra years on 75/ 05 accrued. This is not a godly moment for those wanting a pure 75 or 05 pension. It’s a play on words and 2 years reprieve.

[downsizer]

Ah, I see. So there is no option to return to a pure AFPS 75 pension then? Basically a case of ‘as you were’.

BV

My understanding of reading the document is up until 2022 you can return to a pure '75. At that point everyone transfers to a mix of 05/75 and15; thus it isn't discriminatory as everyone transfers this time, not just those over a certain age.

[Bob Viking]

So if I PVR’d now and got out before 2022 would it be with a full AFPS75 pension (I joined in 1999 and had 15.5/16 years of AFPS 75 before the 15 switch happened)? The most important aspect of which is full pension at age 55.

BV

[Countdown begins]

Bob, that’s exactly it. You’d get back onto 75 ( add time for the whole admin cluster) and then you’d have to leave before that date in 2022.

[Countdown begins]

Accrual rates in 75/05 versus accrual rate on 15? That’s an interesting question. I think you’d have to read 2 separate JSPs.

[downsizer]

All service before 2022 is still on '75 terms if you want it to be so then. Service after 2022 is on '15 so you get a mix of the pension (75/15), just like now. It's not the end of the world but it alos isn't what many thought would happen either.

[Countdown begins]

No, not the end of the world. Maybe those that recently accepted PAS thinking they were back on 05/ 15 May not see it like that though.

[Countdown begins]

On 15 you have to do until age 60 to get the enhanced pension. A day before that,. and it’s a much smaller EDP and wait til you reach pension age, 66-68. It’s a gamble to be on 15, as it is a cost saving measure.

[Easy Street]

On 15 you have to do until age 60 to get the enhanced pension. A day before that,. and it’s a much smaller EDP and wait til you reach pension age, 66-68. It’s a gamble to be on 15, as it is a cost saving measure.

Isn’t 6-8 years’-worth of the difference between the 59.99yr EDP and the 60yr pension almost exactly equal to the lump sum you get if leaving on EDP terms? I know lots of people who have deliberately left shortly before their end of engagement precisely to access the money in this way. It’s a useful choice to have. When I took the decision to accept the age 60 end of service, I calculated that I could PVR/ET at any point after age 55 without taking any pension hit at all. The 75 portion is fully accrued by then so it can’t be at the PVR rate.

15 is also better than 75 for some due to its continued accrual beyond 34yrs commissioned service and the advantage of averaging the higher salary in the second half of a career. A cost-saving measure over a whole career, for sure, but those with an even mix of 75 and 15 have done well I think.

[thelizardking]

No, not the end of the world. Maybe those that recently accepted PAS thinking they were back on 05/ 15 May not see it like that though.
Can you please explain to those of slow thought/understanding why this is a lose for PAS...asking for a friend

[Countdown begins]

You need to balance your own personal risks. Nobody will live forever, and aches and creeks can quite easily ground people. You can’t leave.
It’s actuary territory for the stats and risks, but I’m pretty sure that being in between the pension sweet spots takes nerve and crossed fingers.

[Countdown begins]

Once you accept PAS you have 5 years of hard labour to serve. A couple on the Sqn took it recently, and took the £20k that went with it. They can’t leave until they complete 5 years. Their RoS (??) takes them beyond 2022, but not that far. They can’t leave now, and when they do leave they are on 15. The dates would identify them to the CM so I’m being deliberately vague. They will now go onto an EDP for a significant period of time.

[Easy Street]

Once you accept PAS you have 5 years of hard labour to serve. A couple on the Sqn took it recently, and took the £20k that went with it. They can’t leave until they complete 5 years. Their RoS (??) takes them beyond 2022, but not that far. They can’t leave now, and when they do leave they are on 15. The dates would identify them to the CM so I’m being deliberately vague. They will now go onto an EDP for a significant period of time.

They will be on a (very small) 15 EDP for a significant period of time, but they will also be entitled to their other accrued benefits straight away. Those benefits don't disappear just because they retire on a different scheme.

[Countdown begins]

They will be on a (very small) 15 EDP for a significant period of time, but they will also be entitled to their other accrued benefits straight away. Those benefits don't disappear just because they retire on a different scheme.

I’m not the oracle, just read into my area of interest.

can you expand on the benefits piece?

[Easy Street]

I’m not the oracle, just read into my area of interest.

can you expand on the benefits piece?

Say they leave in 2024 having accumulated 20 years on AFPS75 and 2 years on AFPS15. They would receive a lump sum and immediate pension worth roughly 91% (20/22) of a ‘pure’ 22-year AFPS75 pension, plus a 2-year AFPS15 EDP (which because of their high salary in those 2 years is potentially worth more than the ‘missing’ 9% of the 75 pension). The AFPS75 entitlement doesn’t go away; for instance it is not all converted into a 22-year AFPS15 EDP just because they retired 2 years after the scheme changed. This is what’s known as “accrued rights” and has been a sacrosanct principle of all the pension reforms over the last 15 years. The calculation is a good deal more complex than I’m making out here but I think it illustrates the principle. The actual formulas are available in the pension legislation (see links here (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/pensions-and-compensation-for-veterans)) but you will need to read very carefully indeed. Or wait for the official calculators to be updated, or join the Pension Society!

[SOX80]

- the MoD has stated that for the remedy period it will ensure all eligible Service Personnel will keep their accrued benefits.

This is the key statement above. As far as I see it, for those of us who transferred from 75 to 15 in 2015 (we kept accrued 75 benefits up to 2015 and 15 benefits post this date) this is essentially an extension of that process. We can now keep 75 benefits up till 2022 and 15 benefits after that date, for most, including PA, I think this will be a win but I am by no means an expert.

[Bob Viking]

That’s what I’d taken from it as well, which would be a great result if true.

The only question I then have is what happens at 55 if I leave before then?

In fact if I left next year would that give me all the benefits of a full pension at 55 that AFPS would have given me?

I will be joining the FPS to get answers but if anyone already knows it’d be great if you could share the info.

BV

[Easy Street]

BV,

My reading of it is that if you didn’t switch to AFPS05 and you leave before 2022 then you have the option of going with full AFPS75 benefits. Note that you need to leave at either your 16/38 or 22/44 options or after age 55 to avoid premature retirement rates. The options (with any adjustments to reflect training returns of service) will be recorded on your file because they remained extant if you had any AFPS75 history, even before McCloud. If you are within a year of an option then there will be some arguing with CM to do... they might say you have left it too late to activate your option; you could try saying the pension announcement has changed the calculus and merits special consideration. I suspect there will have to be some sort of class settlement on that... luckily for the RAF I suspect the economic situation will probably stop there being a stampede for the exit! Taking an option can be rescinded later without impact so I’d suggest talking to CM pronto if the one-year cutoff is likely to be a player for you.

[Bob Viking]

My 5 year PAS RoS expires next summer so it’s not an option point but I do have options outside the military.

Leaving on AFPS75 terms which provides full pension at age 55 is quite a jump in income (I had 15.5 years of AFPS75 when the 15 switch happened but my switch to PAS happened in 16) compared with the 75/15 combo which delays the full benefits until age 67.

I definitely need to do some maths. Now, where is that pensions calculator?!

BV

[Just This Once...]

Note that you need to leave at either your 16/38 or 22/44 options or after age 55 to avoid premature retirement rates.

In recent years there has been an explosion in punitive RoS for otherwise routine career moves and/or training. One of the unintended (but sometimes rather convenient) consequences is that an option point that has been overtaken by an RoS does become a (hidden) deferred option point once the RoS (or sequential RoS) period is completed. Manning will claim ignorance on the matter but when pressed hard they have to follow the regulations and precedents.

Of course, pre-2004 there was no such thing as PVR pension abatement once you had made your 38/16 point (really a 37/16 point if you worked the fine print). It only came in with a refinement of rules to aid JPA implementation. Rather a lame justification to change our terms of service & pension, but here we are.

Oh and don't forget the virtual 50/30 point either - no PVR abatement at that point, as well no additional PVR-waiting time or other manning control measures.

[PPRuNeUser0211]

Glad they're doing something about it, even if it looks like it won't be quite the "choose your own" nirvana that might have been hoped for.

@Al R etc, regarding age discrimination, always wondered how AFPS 75 justified the non-accrual of pension below the age of 21, given otherwise entirely equal terms of service between non-grads joining up. Any thoughts?

[Easy Street]

JTO - thank you for the correction on 50/30 vs 55!

A question of my own now. Does anyone know what the position on lifetime allowance would be if one were to retire, crystallise a lucrative AFPS75 pension, and immediately rejoin on AFPS15? I understand fully that the 75 immediate pension will be abated to keep total annual income no higher than the previous salary, and that annual allowance breaches could still be a player (although unlikely if rejoining on a lower salary). Rather, my question is on the lifetime tax treatment of the resulting ‘virtual pension pot’ when the two parts of it are being simultaneously topped up and drawn down. There are quite a few out there who have done this, I believe, so I hope there is one among the audience here! Given the dire financial straits the government finds itself in, I see the chances of an increase in pension tax relief being somewhere between ‘nil’ and ‘zero’, and this pension ruling may present an opportunity to take stock. Pension tax avoidance and reduction in mortgage interest (by ploughing the AFPS75 retirement lump sum straight in, minus the family holiday of a lifetime :O) could make this quite compelling.

[Easy Street]

@Al R etc, regarding age discrimination, always wondered how AFPS 75 justified the non-accrual of pension below the age of 21, given otherwise entirely equal terms of service between non-grads joining up. Any thoughts?

I think the answer to that is “them’s the T&C, they were available for you to read when you signed up, tough luck.” Non-grads got 3 more years’ pay, and pensions were equal if leaving at the IPP.

[Just This Once...]

If only the other T&C's that were more in out favour had remained so equally rigid.

[PPRuNeUser0211]

I think the answer to that is “them’s the T&C, they were available for you to read when you signed up, tough luck.” Non-grads got 3 more years’ pay, and pensions were equal if leaving at the IPP.
I think the logic you quote wouldn't hold water. Sadly a bit of digging shows that age only became a protected characteristic in 2010, and you'd struggle to argue that your pension wasn't created before then I guess!

[Easy Street]

I think the logic you quote wouldn't hold water. Sadly a bit of digging shows that age only became a protected characteristic in 2010, and you'd struggle to argue that your pension wasn't created before then I guess!

Not sure why you think we disagree?!

[Al R]

Are you hoping that an abated AFPS75 income will result in a beneficial (to you) LTA (re)calculation? No, it won’t. The position is that you will be liable to two BCE at the point of initial departure (Benefit Crystalisation Events - 2 and poss 3). Abatement is a nuance of the scheme rules (as determined by The Treasury) and is subordinate to HMRC. Paragraphs 7 to 10 and 11 of Schedule 10 Finance Act 2005 refer.

JTO - thank you for the correction on 50/30 vs 55!

A question of my own now. Does anyone know what the position on lifetime allowance would be if one were to retire, crystallise a lucrative AFPS75 pension, and immediately rejoin on AFPS15? I understand fully that the 75 immediate pension will be abated to keep total annual income no higher than the previous salary, and that annual allowance breaches could still be a player (although unlikely if rejoining on a lower salary). Rather, my question is on the lifetime tax treatment of the resulting ‘virtual pension pot’ when the two parts of it are being simultaneously topped up and drawn down. There are quite a few out there who have done this, I believe, so I hope there is one among the audience here! Given the dire financial straits the government finds itself in, I see the chances of an increase in pension tax relief being somewhere between ‘nil’ and ‘zero’, and this pension ruling may present an opportunity to take stock. Pension tax avoidance and reduction in mortgage interest (by ploughing the AFPS75 retirement lump sum straight in, minus the family holiday of a lifetime :O) could make this quite compelling.

[Al R]

@Al R etc, regarding age discrimination, always wondered how AFPS 75 justified the non-accrual of pension below the age of 21, given otherwise entirely equal terms of service between non-grads joining up. Any thoughts?

Sorry, no idea. ‘Scheme rules’ seems plausible though.

[Al R]

The AFPS75 entitlement doesn’t go away; for instance it is not all converted into a 22-year AFPS15 EDP just because they retired 2 years after the scheme changed. This is what’s known as “accrued rights” and has been a sacrosanct principle of all the pension reforms over the last 15 years.

Don’t think for one minute The Treasury can’t and won’t change anything if it sufficiently serves its purpose, even accrued rights. It wouldn’t be so overt as to do it obviously, all it has to do is change the revaluation factors. There’s more than one way to skin a cat.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/259732/GAD_report_on_flat_factor_version_14_October.pdf

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/564535/gad-report-fixed-revaluation-rate-for-guaranteed-minimum-pensions.pdf.

[Al R]

And as if by magic, Jo is reporting this morning that the public accounts select committee has called for a wide reaching review into pension reliefs and whether the £38bn “opportunity cost” of pensions is a price worth paying. That this specific question is being asked, suggests that the writing is on the wall for the current pension taxation system.

https://www.ft.com/content/fa76ea43-f30c-443f-b818-c14ac36cf9fb

[downsizer]

And as if by magic, Jo is reporting this morning that the public accounts select committee has called for a wide reaching review into pension reliefs and whether the £38bn “opportunity cost” of pensions is a price worth paying. That this specific question is being asked, suggests that the writing is on the wall for the current pension taxation system.

https://www.ft.com/content/fa76ea43-f30c-443f-b818-c14ac36cf9fb

What does this mean for me? In simple Ingerlundish please?

[SamYeager]

What does this mean for me? In simple Ingerlundish please?
You're gonna be stuffed mate but the MP's pension scheme will only get some tinkering around the edges and still be massively generous to its recipients. ;)

[Bob Viking]

The obvious problem I see is that we all know the pensions bill is one the government can’t really afford and they will probably do anything to rid themselves of it.

The only way to protect what you have (for now at least) is to leave the service and realise your asset. The 2022 date suddenly sounds like a ticking clock.

I just can’t shake the nagging feeling that I should cut and run with, what will by then be, a 23 year AFPS 75, PAS pension.

Rejoining at a later date or joining the reserves is always an option and, as PAS, would not be a terrible deal.

I’m hoping to be proven wrong.

BV

[downsizer]

BV

I fear you are correct.

[Countdown begins]

What does this mean for me? In simple Ingerlundish please?
I think it’s to do with tax relief on personal pensions.
Say you earn £55k a year, but want to invest in a personal pension plan, then if you were to pay £5k into such a plan you would get £1k paid into your plan by the government, and you woul get a further £1k back when you file your tax return. You get 40% on that £5 back. It’s a nice way of keeping yourself in the lower tax band, for now.
It’s a good kickback if you can afford it, but you won’t see the 20% that goes into your plan until you start drawing it.

[Al R]

What does this mean for me? In simple Ingerlundish please?

MPs believe that too much of the various reliefs and benefits granted for retirement planning (think free money/tax free cash/accrual etc) are going to those who shouldn’t be having such a large slice of the pie.

For years now, the voices have been getting louder. Is the role of tax reliefs in rebuilding a post pandemic economy efficient and fair, does the current regime of tax reliefs perform this role well, etc. The argument has always been that tax relief (for instance) is worth it in the long run because those who benefit from it then spend it back into the economy, and we all benefit. It’s not working out like that.

So, curtailing relief and benefits in retirement planning for the few would be inexpensive to fix and would be a popular and easy incentivisation for low earners to pay into pensions. What does it mean for you? The changes will most likely be profound (biggest in a generation possibly). Given that personal pension regulation and legislation changes are just one small aspect, then it’s still going to leave the Defined Benefit landscape even more exposed and indefensible.

How that manifests itself could be in any number of ways. Revised revaluation rates might leave you more exposed to annual or lifetime breaches, personal contributions into AFPS, less beneficial commutation etc. Who knows.

[Jambo Jet]

I think it’s to do with tax relief on personal pensions.
Say you earn £55k a year, but want to invest in a personal pension plan, then if you were to pay £5k into such a plan you would get £1k paid into your plan by the government, and you woul get a further £1k back when you file your tax return. You get 40% on that £5 back. It’s a nice way of keeping yourself in the lower tax band, for now.
It’s a good kickback if you can afford it, but you won’t see the 20% that goes into your plan until you start drawing it.

Except it is better than that, for every 4K you put in the gov pay 1K, and you can claim 1K back. (ie 5K gets paid in for a 4 K contribution, 20% tax relief paid by gov 1k and if you are a high rate tax payer you claim back an additional 20%=1K)

[Melchett01]

I did see the consultation out the other day and one bit struck me very clearly - this isn't a one way bet, tax bills loom for the unlucky few (probably including yours truly) with the consultation clearly noting that some will require an adjustment to their tax positions.

Yet this doesn't need to be the case. At the start of the year I was stung with a 5-figure tax bill for no reason other than I happened to be good at my job, and a couple of years ago I got lucky and was promoted. Yet when I did the calculations, it was clear that the pension input amounts are not linear i.e they are not in line with pension benefits as defined in the various documentation as being a function of salary, years served and accrual rates. Instead, whilst benefits acrue in a predictable manner, the underlying pension inputs are all over the place, some years decreasing from the previous year's value - something the FPS never did explain to me even though I asked..

The point I am getting to is that any compensation could well incur a signficant tax bill if thrown at the notional pension pot in one go. Yet it doesn't need to be. That the pension inputs vary so much each year begs the question why any compensation can't be fed in over time to smooth the input values thereby negating tax bills which would arise from single large inputs. That, I think, will be a service complaint if I get yet another tax bill simply because the MOD has delibertely exceeded the limits when it could smooth the input levels. Not sure who would be most likely to be at risk from this scenario, but I suspect those who have promoted during the period in question must surely be at risk.

[Easy Street]

Melchy,

The obvious way to do it would seem to be to go back and re-build your pension year-by-year from 2015 to 2022, taking into account any promotions as they happened, and work out the tax due at the end of each year through that period. Add up the tax due over the 7 years, compare it to what you actually paid, and bill you for the difference.

I can’t see them making a huge one-off adjustment to your pension value in 2022 because that would certainly cost more in tax than a series of smaller back-dated adjustments. And that would penalise individuals for receiving in a lump what would have been given to them incrementally had the Government not acted illegally.

[Melchett01]

Melchy,

The obvious way to do it would seem to be to go back and re-build your pension year-by-year from 2015 to 2022, taking into account any promotions as they happened, and work out the tax due at the end of each year through that period. Add up the tax due over the 7 years, compare it to what you actually paid, and bill you for the difference.

I can’t see them making a huge one-off adjustment to your pension value in 2022 because that would certainly cost more in tax than a series of smaller back-dated adjustments. And that would penalise individuals for receiving in a lump what would have been given to them incrementally had the Government not acted illegally.

Easy Street,

That is the obvious thing to do, but it doesn’t work because the amount that is nominally allocated to your pension pot as it is, doesn’t change in line with the calculation of what you are actually due to receive. One year there was a 6 figure increase after a few years of low increases and in some cases year on year dips.

There’s no logic to the input amount and that’s the issue. In compensating people for being naughty, the potential exists for them to just throw a pot of money at peoples’ pots which puts them over the ALA - even though it’s nominal figures rather than any money actually received.

I appreciate it’s a first world problem at the best of times let alone now, but it hardly does much for a sense of injustice if you are taxed on the restitution of demonstrably illegal behaviour when it can easily be avoided by smoothing the inputs.

[Easy Street]

The accrual you describe (a large spike at the end of the tax year after promotion, and a smaller spike at the end of the next) is exactly how AFPS75 works, and keeps working even after you switch to another scheme. They can’t and won’t retrospectively flatten that out, it is a ‘feature‘ of the tax treatment of the scheme, and so I don’t see how they could justifiably treat the spikes differently if recalculating the 2015-22 period. All that can be done is to carry forward unused annual allowance from the 3 years before the spike. These are Treasury rules, not MOD: no chance of them changing for the better.

I reckon anyone who was promoted to wg cdr or above after 2013 needs to do some very hard thinking about their 2022 choice; increasing the number of years accrued on 75 makes those tax-attracting spikes even bigger!

[Bob Viking]

I just need to know one thing. Are PAS Flt Lts safe either way?!

Jack’s on board. Haul up the ladder.

BV

[Sandy Parts]

One for the younger viewers (if there are any on prune..). If/when you do move to AFPS15, if you leave and then re-join (regular or FTRS), I understand that scheme no longer requires your pension to be abated (which is where the amount you get in new wages plus pension cannot be more than wage on last day of previous service). Shame that change of heart wasn't also applied across all pension schemes when AFPS15 began (Declaration - I may have a personal interest in that issue :})

[MechGov]

From the Telegraph...”The days of the fighter pilot are numbered, the Defence Secretary has suggested, saying that only 10 per cent of aircraft will be manned by 2040.”
This will save some money on pensions. Especially now that you have to serve to 60 to get the immediate index linked pension.

[Bob Viking]

Can’t see it being that soon but one day almost certainly.

Even the 10% will still need to learn to fly so jobs for QFIs are safe. Although I will have retired by then anyway.

BV

[Party Animal]

Utter Hoop!

E7,P8, F35, other ISR, SH and trucky stuff will still be flying in 2040 etc..

But I think we know what he means.

[Chauderon]

Having skimmed through the 45 pages of 'Judicial Pensions: Proposed response to McCloud Consultation'... there is a nugget of good news "it is acknowledged that it will be necessary to pay interest where MoJ owes money to the member or member’s estate or dependants". Hopefully this is the full statutory 8% as the debt is a result of a law being broken.

If the AFPS goes along the same lines as the MoJ, it looks as though options will not be available for some time, unless you retired after AFPS 15 came into being in which case it would be earlier...

[Just This Once...]

Link to the above:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/901337/judicial-pensions-proposed-response-to-McCloud.pdf

[Common_Sense]

Does anyone have any updates on this subject?

[Just This Once...]

HM Treasury hosted the final Ministry of Defence, AFPS / McCloud Technical Discussions on 7 Sep 20.

Beyond that I've heard nothing.

[downsizer]

What interests me is they keep saying that '15 can benefit some people.....who are these people?

I'm 75/15 and every number I crunch puts me better of on 75 than a switch to a mix of 75/15.

[PPRuNeUser0211]

What interests me is they keep saying that '15 can benefit some people.....who are these people?

I'm 75/15 and every number I crunch puts me better of on 75 than a switch to a mix of 75/15.


PAS staying to final pension is, I believe , better off under 15? Not done the maths on it as I don't care about it!

[Party Animal]

Those who signed on to the age of 60 whilst fully on AFPS 75. That’s because the pension stopped at the age of 55 and that would be 5 years of nothing if you left at 60. Now, they should get 5 years of the 15 pension.

[downsizer]

Imagine still being "in" at 60. What a scary thought.

[SirToppamHat]

Those who signed on to the age of 60 whilst fully on AFPS 75. That’s because the pension stopped at the age of 55 and that would be 5 years of nothing if you left at 60. Now, they should get 5 years of the 15 pension.

Not strictly true Party Animal, but there's some truth in it because the AFPS 75 tops out after 34 years reckonable (typically from age 21) service (not necessarily at the age of 55). In my case I joined at the age of 24 and had expected to retire at 55 (the week before last in fact), so was not switched to AFPS 15. However, I have now extended to 60 and would have reached the top of the AFPS 75 scheme at the age of 58. At that point I would have stopped earning any additional levels on the scheme, so that I would have spent the last 2 years of my service marking time (apart from the expected annual CPI-based increases).

On the face of it, this seems a bit unfair, but I knew that when I accepted the offer - and I also knew that I could pull the yellow and black at 58 without penalty (ET carries no penalty at that point)..

What appears to be about to be offered will potentially prevent me getting to the top of the AFPS 75 scale, but I will at least have the potential to earn on the new scheme to age 60. The difference being that I presume the 15 scheme will not pay out until I am 67(?). There is risk attached to this of course, and it is one I would rather not take thank you.

I am cynical by nature and have always taken the view that any change to our pension arrangements would OVERALL (and therefore ON AVERAGE) lead to us receiving less financial benefit than staying on an existing scheme. Talking to colleagues at work, there seemed to be an expectation that those who had (unlawfully) been moved onto the AFPS 15 would simply be able to move back and that would be an end to it. I guess that's not quite the case.

[Jambo Jet]

What appears to be about to be offered will potentially prevent me getting to the top of the AFPS 75 scale, but I will at least have the potential to earn on the new scheme to age 60. The difference being that I presume the 15 scheme will not pay out until I am 67(?). There is risk attached to this of course, and it is one I would rather not take thank you.
e.

Im in a very similar boat, however if you stay in until your 60th birthday I think you will find that AFPS 15 becomes payable at 60; if you left the day before then you're right, the 15 portion will be paid at SPA. The risk is obviously being healthy enough to serve from 55 - 60 and not being discharged early or being removed from PAS on health grounds and into some other role!

What is still to be decided though is whether we need to decide shortly after 1 April 22 which pension scheme we wish 1 April 15 - 1 April 22 service to be counted as, or will we be given that option when we eventually claim our pensions. I fully expect Veterans UK will give you an illustration of both schemes for you to decide which is best for you. I think that is what the consultation period will iron out !

Interesting times

[Melchett01]

I fully expect Veterans UK will give you an illustration of both schemes for you to decide which is best for you. I think that is what the consultation period will iron out !

Interesting times
I wouldn’t bank on it if it’s anything like the previous illustrations. They will pick a few “representative” ranks and cases, which aren’t particularly representative, and will leave you to do your own calculations. At best they will update the Pensions Calculator, but that will only be indicative given it doesn’t take into account AVCs or future rises, whilst any calculation you get from Veterans UK will be based purely on current rank and pay.

As I recall the AFPS saying ahead of the 2005 changes, you’ve more to lose from the wrong decision than you’ll make from the right one. If I doubt stay put. I’m expecting similar ‘rule of thumb’ advice this time round.

[Lima Juliet]

Having read the last few posts I am kind of staggered at the lack of knowledge of the various Armed Forces’ Pension Schemes (AFPSs). The guidance booklets aren’t that hard to understand and are even hosted on the open internet here: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/pensions-and-compensation-for-veterans These booklets were refreshed in Jul 20 to make them clearer and the same format to allow easy comparison.

If you can’t be bothered to read them, then join the Forces’ Pension Society (FPS) who will basically read the books for you. They will also answer queries for you if you want someone to mark your homework. For £40/year, for many, that is a good investment too. Especially if you struggle with the simple guides in the first link. https://forcespensionsociety.org

So let’s have a think about what happens if you retire after age 55:

1. AFPS75 - nothing, but you will likely get the same amount as if you retire at 55. For officers the maximum you can accrue is 34 years after age 21, and for airmen it is 37 years after age 18. However, few will now be on pure 75 now and many will be on 75/15.

2. AFPS75/15 - the same applies for the 75 above, but since Apr 15 you have been accruing AFPS15 as well at Career Average rate (since 2015 - which is important, as you will be getting a better rate). You can retire at 55 and you will get your full AFPS75 pension that you earned and whatever you earned since 2015 under AFPS15 as an Early Departure Payment (EDP). That EDP will be roughly 1/3rd of your final pension at State Pension Age (SPA). If you are FTRS, ADC, VeRR, etc... you will have to serve until age 60 as there is no EDP entitlement, but you can retire at 55 and take an actuarially reduced AFPS15 (the pension calculator can help you calculate this).

2. AFPS05 - nothing changes. You can retire at 55 and get the same benefits. Maximum benefits are earned after 40 years of service. Again, few will be on AFPS05 solely and most will be on AFPS05/15. Those that were on AFPS75 before but took the Offer To Transfer (OTT) in 2004/5 will only have entitlement to AFPS05 as their service in AFPS75 was fully transferred when they took the OTT. However, they preserved AFPS05 when they were transferred under AFPS15 to get AFPS05/15.

3. AFPS05/15 - It’s the same deal as AFPS75/15 apart from the fact that you have a portion of AFPS05 instead of AFPS75. But the rules for the AFPS15 portion are the same as above.

4. AFPS15 - for those that joined from 2015 onwards then the McCloud judgement does not apply. You are stuck with AFPS15. That sounds bad, but it isn’t. Whilst it is not as good as AFPS75 or AFPS05 in many areas, it is still probably the very best public sector pension scheme out there. Actually, of you stay the full career to age 60 then you should have a better pension than either AFPS75 and AFPS05. So AFPS15 really rewards for long service and the 2 reward for mid-career breaks better.

So, you can leave between age 55 and age 60 and still get benefits. To maximise those, you need to do those last 5 years, but you can leave at 55 as before.

Get your heads in the 30(ish) page booklets in the first link. They really are easy readers! But if you can’t manage that, or if you have complex affairs then join the FPS and pay what could be the best £40 ever.

Oh, and keep playing with the calculator for various scenarios to check your understanding... https://www.mod-pc.co.uk

[Easy Street]

Bravo, LJ!

if you stay in until your 60th birthday I think you will find that AFPS 15 becomes payable at 60; if you left the day before then you're right, the 15 portion will be paid at SPA.

This is correct, BUT it is important to say that if you leave at 60 you get no lump sum from AFPS15, whereas if you leave one day earlier, you do. Experimentation with the online calculator shows that (AFPS15 lump sum) divided by (number of years between 60 and SPA) gives a number tolerably close to the difference in annual pension. It is effectively a different way of receiving the same money and I know several people who have deliberately retired a few days early to receive a boost to their 75 or 05 lump sums.

[Common_Sense]

Having read the last few posts I am kind of staggered at the lack of knowledge of the various Armed Forces’ Pension Schemes (AFPSs). The guidance booklets aren’t that hard to understand and are even hosted on the open internet here: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/pensions-and-compensation-for-veterans These booklets were refreshed in Jul 20 to make them clearer and the same format to allow easy comparison.

If you can’t be bothered to read them, then join the Forces’ Pension Society (FPS) who will basically read the books for you. They will also answer queries for you if you want someone to mark your homework. For £40/year, for many, that is a good investment too. Especially if you struggle with the simple guides in the first link. https://forcespensionsociety.org

So let’s have a think about what happens if you retire after age 55:

1. AFPS75 - nothing, but you will likely get the same amount as if you retire at 55. For officers the maximum you can accrue is 34 years after age 21, and for airmen it is 37 years after age 18. However, few will now be on pure 75 now and many will be on 75/15.

2. AFPS75/15 - the same applies for the 75 above, but since Apr 15 you have been accruing AFPS15 as well at Career Average rate (since 2015 - which is important, as you will be getting a better rate). You can retire at 55 and you will get your full AFPS75 pension that you earned and whatever you earned since 2015 under AFPS15 as an Early Departure Payment (EDP). That EDP will be roughly 1/3rd of your final pension at State Pension Age (SPA). If you are FTRS, ADC, VeRR, etc... you will have to serve until age 60 as there is no EDP entitlement, but you can retire at 55 and take an actuarially reduced AFPS15 (the pension calculator can help you calculate this).

2. AFPS05 - nothing changes. You can retire at 55 and get the same benefits. Maximum benefits are earned after 40 years of service. Again, few will be on AFPS05 solely and most will be on AFPS05/15. Those that were on AFPS75 before but took the Offer To Transfer (OTT) in 2004/5 will only have entitlement to AFPS05 as their service in AFPS75 was fully transferred when they took the OTT. However, they preserved AFPS05 when they were transferred under AFPS15 to get AFPS05/15.

3. AFPS05/15 - It’s the same deal as AFPS75/15 apart from the fact that you have a portion of AFPS05 instead of AFPS75. But the rules for the AFPS15 portion are the same as above.

4. AFPS15 - for those that joined from 2015 onwards then the McCloud judgement does not apply. You are stuck with AFPS15. That sounds bad, but it isn’t. Whilst it is not as good as AFPS75 or AFPS05 in many areas, it is still probably the very best public sector pension scheme out there. Actually, of you stay the full career to age 60 then you should have a better pension than either AFPS75 and AFPS05. So AFPS15 really rewards for long service and the 2 reward for mid-career breaks better.

So, you can leave between age 55 and age 60 and still get benefits. To maximise those, you need to do those last 5 years, but you can leave at 55 as before.

Get your heads in the 30(ish) page booklets in the first link. They really are easy readers! But if you can’t manage that, or if you have complex affairs then join the FPS and pay what could be the best £40 ever.

Oh, and keep playing with the calculator for various scenarios to check your understanding... https://www.mod-pc.co.uk

so how does someone who has left on a mix of AFPS75 and AFPS15 find out what they should have had on just 75 using the calculators? It doesn’t seem to allow historic leaving dates, so there doesn’t seem to be a retrospective option?

[4everAD]

so how does someone who has left on a mix of AFPS75 and AFPS15 find out what they should have had on just 75 using the calculators? It doesn’t seem to allow historic leaving dates, so there doesn’t seem to be a retrospective option?
You could look at the Tri-Service Pension Codes and look how much you'd get for the amount of years served on 75.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/tri-service-pension-codes-april-2020

[Common_Sense]

Anybody heard any news on this yet?

[ForcesPensionSociety]

We are not expecting to hear much before the Spring.

[Chauderon]

We are not expecting to hear much before the Spring.

That 8% statutory interest is adding up

[Door Slider]

Anybody heard any news on this yet?

The public consultation only ended a month ago.

[Common_Sense]

Any news yet? Surely with covid this could have been staffed from home?

[ForcesPensionSociety]

I heard this morning that there is to be a Treasury announcement on this on 4 February.

[Countdown begins]

I heard this morning that there is to be a Treasury announcement on this on 4 February.

Thanks for the update.

[Fortissimo]

The news from HMT is that everyone serving on 31 March 2012 and forced onto AFPS15 will be transferred back to whatever scheme they were on at the time. As expected, everyone serving on 1 Apr 2022 will be transferred to the new scheme regardless of age. For the avoidance of confusion that means you will have the choice of legacy or reformed scheme benefits, so you can take whichever option is most advantageous to you.

At the point you decide to take pension benefits, you will have the option of either taking those benefits per your previous scheme or electing for a reversion to AFPS15 wef 1 Apr 15 and being treated accordingly. There should be more detailed information coming from MOD and FPS, as there will have to be some form of adjustment for all those who have had tax bills over the last few years (Scheme Pays etc.) Not sure what they will do about people who paid the bill up front, presumably the remedy arrangements will have to take all that into account.

I think MOD will have a lot of work to do on the details and DBS will no doubt be prioritising those closest to retirement. There will clearly be some retrospective work to provide the same choice for those who retired on the reformed scheme (AFPS15). There will still be tax bills for some...

[Chauderon]

Great news, on the face of it! Hopefully the timescale for remedy is reasonable from hereon 🤞

[Al R]

The consultation.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/958189/20210129_PRP_consultation_response_final.pdf

[Al R]

At the point you decide to take pension benefits, you will have the option of either taking those benefits per your previous scheme or electing for a reversion to AFPS15 wef 1 Apr 15 and being treated accordingly.

The risk-cost has been consigned to the government down the road. In itself, it means that huge uncertainty will prevail and the cost (whatever it will be) be be transferred to those following on.

[ForcesPensionSociety]

https://forcespensionsociety.org/2021/02/mccloud-remedy-announced/

[Training Risky]

Great news!! For the dense among us, does this mean that a) my current mix of monthly AFPS75/15 pension payments will start to increase when it goes fully AFPS75, And b) will I get a refund of the missed 75 payments for the 5 years I spent unwillingly on AFPS15?!

cheers all.

[Just This Once...]

Deferred Choice - can ask for no better than that.

Surprised that they need to consult on what interest rates to pay us though. I had thought there was a well-worn path with such rates that and they have had plenty of time to sort it all out rather than trigger another unbounded consultation.

[Party Animal]

Good news indeed. Hopefully it shouldn’t be too difficult to update the Armed Forces Pension Calculator so we can clearly see the options.

[lsh]

This was clearly a nightmare scenario for all those serving.
So glad to see that a fair and uniform decision seems to have been reached.

lsh
:E

[Countdown begins]

[QUOTE=Party Animal;10983629]Good news indeed. Hopefully it shouldn’t be too difficult to update the Armed Forces Pension Calculator so we can clearly see the options.

The fact that there is no new calculator is a good example of what’s wrong here. Whilst this was all being staffed and dotted/ crossed you’d have thought someone would have engaged with whoever builds the calculator.
A ‘good few months’ was an answer I was given today.

[flyingorthopod]

This is going to make my next tax return a bit tricky, along with whatever happens to scheme pays arrangements and pension tax bills.

[PPRuNeUser0211]

This is going to make my next tax return a bit tricky, along with whatever happens to scheme pays arrangements and pension tax bills.
Wouldn't want to be leaving the service in the next 6 months either. I'd imagine that'll be a car crash!

[gipsymagpie]

I wouldn't worry about the next 6 months:

Gov.uk announcement (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/mccloud-remedy-update)
If you read in detail, I don't think this is going to actually happen until October 2023. The recent "consultation" was a foregone conclusion (it was always going to be the deferred option - the other option was a redress waiting to happen). Like others have said, it's been a good lot of delaying tactics to push the cost into later budgets.

But still, I'm looking forward to getting the pension I actually signed up for.

[Al R]

ONS has (this morning) announced a 21% increase in government pension liabilities - including £1.2trn for unfunded defined benefit pension entitlements for public sector employees, equal to 55% of GDP - just think about that. Paying an additional c£4bn pa in respect of this report won’t help things for those much younger and still hard charging in accrual.

[Countdown begins]

I am not asking for advice.
Am I correct in assuming that if I return to 05 from an 05/15 split my PIA will reduce for each year back to 2015?
I’ve asked the PS and got told they don’t give out advice (?) on that and I should consult a professional. I’m after an answer, as if the accrual rate does decrease 1/40 versus 1/70 rough terms, then I have more of my AA to use.

[Lima Juliet]

Countdown begins

I think you may be a bit muddled with your logic? AFPS15 is 1/47th so will not decrease, but increase, your Pension Input Amount (PIA). So reverting to AFPS05 at 1/70th could well reduce your PIA. However, I believe that few get close to the Annual Allowance maximum of £40k with AFPS15 or AFPS05 - it is usually the AFPS75 lurking in the background that is the killer. That is my understanding anyway - and I’m happy to be proved wrong!

[popeye107]

Countdown begins

I think you may be a bit muddled with your logic? AFPS15 is 1/47th so will not decrease, but increase, your Pension Input Amount (PIA). So reverting to AFPS05 at 1/70th could well reduce your PIA. However, I believe that few get close to the Annual Allowance maximum of £40k with AFPS15 or AFPS05 - it is usually the AFPS75 lurking in the background that is the killer. That is my understanding anyway - and I’m happy to be proved wrong!

Good post, Lima, and I agree with 05 being the slower burner. Just for interest I know of a couple of NCA MAcr that were moved onto 15 coming within a couple of £1000 of the AA on promotion. There’s probably more, but if you aren’t sent a letter, then why ask.. there could be quite a few close to the AA on 15 without knowing. I think they had to write to find out, so I should imagine Glasgow PIA department is going to get asked to re-run their calculations soon.

[Lima Juliet]

popeye107

I believe that the AFPS15 MAcr will also be on AFPS75 as AFPS75/15 pension earners. The PIA could well be the fact that promotion to MAcr a couple of years previously, and possibly PAS supplements, means that the ‘lurking’ AFPS75 has now picked this amount up. Everyone is different as it depends on time served, rank and pay scales. But I suspect that your Masters getting close are being ‘stung’ by the 75 portion, that accrues at uneven rates, rather than the 15 portion that accrues at 1/47th :ok:

You can see the uneven accrual rates for AFPS75 in the Pension Code tables here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/tri-service-pension-codes-april-2020

[Common_Sense]

So for those of us that joined on 75 and retired on 15, what sort of timescales should we be expected to be fairly compensated?

Surely the calculations for those that were negatively impacted over a relatively small timescale window is straightforward? (Effectively give them back their 75 pension benefits and say sorry?)

[gipsymagpie]

Faster some searching I found it.....

Schemes will implement the processes and systems needed to offer a deferred choice for the majority of members by 2023, however, some individuals who have a particular need, for example, who has retired since 2015 with an ill-health pension will have their benefits amended sooner.

[3 bladed beast]

Thought I'd bring this back up.... has anyone seen any factual development or calculator to work this out!?

Thanks

[Bob Viking]

I’m glad they’re taking their time to produce something so vital. It’s not like there are thousands of government employees waiting on it or anything.

At least they’ve sorted out the female hair policy and re-written the beard rules though.

We’ve also managed to re-state our diversity targets for the umpteenth time.

BV

(Slightly grumpy as I complete my third quarantine period this year!).

[gipsymagpie]

Can I suggest a look through of this published at the end of July by the RAF?

https://www.raf.mod.uk/serving-families/news/raf-pensions-mccloud-judgment-update/

A line that jumped out at me was this:
​​​​​​
All policy legislation and process must be implemented by October 23.

Basically they have set themselves a very lazy target (over 2 years away) to have the solution in place. I have zero hope they will finish the task early. Which is going to mean huge back payments are going to be due to some people who may have over 5 years of underpayment by that point. Christmas 2023 is going to be epic.

[Just This Once...]

I can only presume that whatever compulsory interest rate has been awarded is not onerous enough to prompt rapid resolution and has only encouraged the 'slow walk'.

It is for a period from 2015 to potentially 2022. It took around 3 years of legal debate for the courts to rule (2018) on a period that would end under 4 years later (2022). We will have spent more years waiting for the resolution than it took the courts to rule against the scheme in question.

I cannot accept that "Delivering this remedy will take time as legislation must be passed, policies need to be developed and complex IT changes are required" . Too many years have elapsed for the MoD to claim 'surprise' at the changes needed given the work completed by HMT ahead of the legal proceedings. These changes should have been scoped and implemented along the way, not kicked down the road.

[Party Animal]

So let me get this right....

I can use the Pension Calculator from the end of October 21 to work out reasonably accurately (one hopes) what is the best deal for me to be on should I choose to leave next year.

However, there is no guarantee that I would get the best deal until the legislation is resolved after October 23!!

It could be like getting the Retention Bonus all over again for Christmas 23.

[Lima Juliet]

So let me get this right....

I can use the Pension Calculator from the end of October 21 to work out reasonably accurately (one hopes) what is the best deal for me to be on should I choose to leave next year.

However, there is no guarantee that I would get the best deal until the legislation is resolved after October 23!!

It could be like getting the Retention Bonus all over again for Christmas 23.

I think you have got this wrong…

You can leave whenever you like and get the payout that you are entitled to. The date of Oct 23 is to get everything in place, including future legislation, pension calculators, changes to JPA, QRs/JSPs/APs amended (some of which secondary legislation) and other triv. The main McCloud process means that towards the end of your career, for the 7 year ‘remedy period’ (1 Apr 15 – 31 Mar 22 or your retirement date if earlier) you will be able to choose between the pension benefits offered by your legacy (AFPS 75 or 05) scheme or the reformed (AFPS 15) scheme - that will not need any change as all three bits of pension legislation exist to enact that. I would expect to see pay outs well before Oct 23 for many as for some it will be simple switch to the 2022 AFPS75 Pension Codes when they are released.

Interestingly enough, I have still done my own calculations and at age 60, my planned retirement age, I will still be better off on AFPS75/15 than I would be on plain old AFPS75 - to the tune of about £9.5K per year for the rest of my life. The reason being that my Career Average on transfer in 2015 is way higher than normal and also that it accrues way faster than AFPS75 on its own (also on AFPS75 I can only claim 34 of my 38 years served). That is why the calculator is key here and I suspect that a whole bunch of us will be pleasantly surprised :ok:

[Party Animal]

I hope you’re right LJ - just some of the messaging is confusing. I’m one of those in the 55-60 bracket currently only on AFPS75, which meant none of my pay from age 55 was pensionable. The McCloud deal is a no brainier to take the AFPS15 option for the 7 year window and it will add significantly to my final amount.

The point about the confused messaging comes from a mate about to leave in the next 6 months. He (allegedly) has been told that he will be on his original deal only until the legislation has been sorted. Ultimately, he will get pension back pay in his favour but the timescale is totally unknown at this time? Presume the priority is for those already receiving pensions before they get around to those about to leave?

Regardless, good to have a date for the pension calculator update and many of us will look forward to playing with the options.

[Lima Juliet]

There have been some proper crazy rumours around this one. There was one guy who was convinced the he had to leave before 1 Apr 22. I couldn’t for the life of me work out why he thought that. He seemed to think that if he didn’t take his AFPS75, then he would be forced to move to AFPS15, and lose rights to AFPS75. That is, of course, total garbage. The individual has 2 options and doesn’t have to leave at all - they can have AFPS75/15 either way, with either more AFPS75 or more AFPS15 - but he was convinced he couldn’t and would need to leave before April next year. Bonkers!

I think the real problem is that the original decision created so much distrust that some are unable to believe that McCloud is actually a good deal. In fact AFPS15 was a pretty reasonable settlement back in 2015, but the whole way it was rolled out and presented was pretty poor in my opinion. I also heard a rumour that enhancements were being considered prior to the McCloud judgement, but then the cost of remedy shelved those. This has led to rumours of an AFPS22, which of course is also bunkum, as it would need to be staffed and with us by now. I reckon AFPS15 will be with us for a while now whilst they see how the McCloud remedy works out. Depending on how that goes will dictate how long AFPS15 remains as it is. But that is all just opinion before anyone makes it fact and decides they need to leave over it! :ugh:

[Nil_Drift]

I understand the concern of the person that LJ says is 'bonkers' because of the way that the RAF has been so unhelpful in the past. When the 05 offer was being touted with a very short period of time to decide, any questions that were asked were all met with "I'm not a Financial Advisor, it's your call". As it is standard these days to have better things replaced with not so good, and PR-led headlines but important things still obscured by small print, my immediate concern on seeing that all would be going onto 15 from Apr 22 was that there is no Lump Sum with 15 at age 60. Therefore, what happens to those of us who have been on 75 for 40 years and, in the last couple of months get switched, compulsorily, on to a scheme that does not give a lump sum at age 60?
The worst scenario to skilled aircrew who haven't been boning up on financial wizardry through our careers would be that some adminer would say, "Sorry Sir, no lump sum because you're on 15 now". Explaining how this 'bonkers' person would feel, perhaps the best thing is to go on 31 Mar 22 with my Lump Sum rather than chance it to my 60th birthday and then get conned. I thought that and the Pension Society has assured me, kindly, that that is not the case. So why isn't there a FAQ line somewhere to allay these fears/suspicions?
It is still interesting to know, if having received my Lump Sum, as I have been assured that it is safe despite the forced changeover, if I decide that as PAS it is better to go 75/15, will I have to pay back any of the Lump Sum as I will get that before the decision has been finalised?
So, in summary, less financially-astute personnel are not 'bonkers' just very cautious of the young thrusters who are changing too many things too quickly very rarely for the benefit of those who have given more than 2/3 of their life to Queen and country.

[Easy Street]

I understand LJ's frustration. You don't need financial advice to understand the simple fact that your AFPS75 rights were/will be preserved on transfer, to AFPS05 (if you took it) and AFPS15 (whether you end up taking it in 2015 or 2022).

Forces Pension Society (https://forcespensionsociety.org/pensions/): All pension earned up to 31st March 2015 in a legacy scheme became an accrued pension right that can’t be taken away.

If you have AFPS75 in your pension history then you will get a AFPS75 lump sum on retirement. The more years you had on AFPS75, the bigger it will be. It really is as simple as that.

If you are not confident in your ability to use the pension calculator to make projections, then a financial advisor will help you work out which of the AFPS15 transfer points you should opt for, and whether you should retire a few weeks before your mandatory date. Those are decisions you can take nearer the time.

For the avoidance of doubt *your earned pension rights cannot be taken away and there is no need to leave the service to protect them*.

[MechGov]

I understand LJ's frustration. You don't need financial advice to understand the simple fact that your AFPS75 rights were/will be preserved on transfer, to AFPS05 (if you took it) and AFPS15 (whether you end up taking it in 2015 or 2022).



If you have AFPS75 in your pension history then you will get a AFPS75 lump sum on retirement. The more years you had on AFPS75, the bigger it will be. It really is as simple as that.

If you are not confident in your ability to use the pension calculator to make projections, then a financial advisor will help you work out which of the AFPS15 transfer points you should opt for, and whether you should retire a few weeks before your mandatory date. Those are decisions you can take nearer the time.

For the avoidance of doubt *your earned pension rights cannot be taken away and there is no need to leave the service to protect them*.
If you are in a position to retire now with full benefits it might be worth considering the effect on your pension by however many years of no pay rise or below inflation pay rises you are likely to endure. At 55 your pension is index linked. I retired after the last bout of austerity at level 35 PAS and my pension was less than a mate who retired 5 years earlier at level 30.

[Easy Street]

If you are in a position to retire now with full benefits it might be worth considering the effect on your pension by however many years of no pay rise or below inflation pay rises you are likely to endure. At 55 your pension is index linked. I retired after the last bout of austerity at level 35 PAS and my pension was less than a mate who retired 5 years earlier at level 30.

It's a good point. The difference now is that you can keep accruing a AFPS15 pension until age 60, growing at 1/47th (2.1%) of each year's salary. A full AFPS75 pension is roughly 50% of salary, so for index-linking to keep pace you'd need CPI to be running 4.2% higher than the annual pay award. I guess it might be possible for a year or two but it would be surprising if such a situation could last much longer than that.

[Just This Once...]

For the avoidance of doubt *your earned pension rights cannot be taken away and there is no need to leave the service to protect them*.

Easy Street
I think the nail you hit here reflects the lack of trust between the MoD and AFPS members and to be frank, there is good reason for this.

Fine print is one thing but the MoD can hide behind errors of omission too. A current example is for AFPS75 members serving on PA Spine terms (including transfers from Spec Aircrew to PA) - the MoD never amended the Medical Pension rights for the newer scheme in the same manner as they did for the normal enhanced pension. So if you look-up the AFPS75 medical pension tables you will see enhanced tables for all bespoke pay and pension spines (eg docs, lawyers, dentists, SF etc) and can easily find the current one for Spec Aircrew. But only Spec Aircrew - no PA Spine.

In recent years the absence of an amended ill-health pension table (there is no mention of the PA Spine anywhere) the MoD has defaulted to a position of 'no enhanced medical pension for PA Spine'. This policy is even enforced for those transferred from SA terms to PA Spine by the direction of MoD. Leave healthy and you get the enhanced pension you were expecting. Leave unhealthy whilst PA Spine, be it battlefield injury, MoD negligence, terminal illness or whatever then you are effectively removed from the PA Spine at exit. There is no other precedent for this and single-service commands recognise that this as more of an accidental omission than deliberate sculduggery but the MoD has made its decision - the absence of any wording as to how PA Spine are treated for Medical Pensions equals an opportunity to save money on the backs of the families who probably need it the most.

The lack of trust is at the root of these problems and the very core of this thread is around an unfair decision taken by the MoD to the detriment of its Armed Forces Pension Scheme members that it tried to fight through the courts, only to lose.

Both the Armed Forces Pension Board (15 members on that board, ever heard anything positive from them on member's rights?) and the MoD cannot be trusted - they make no attempt to protect the rights of scheme members and have effectively abdicated that role to the courts.

[Professor Plum]

The lack of trust is at the root of these problems and the very core of this thread is around an unfair decision taken by the MoD to the detriment of its Armed Forces Pension Scheme members that it tried to fight through the courts, only to lose.

it is because of this very reason I will be leaving at (and perhaps before) my EDP pension point.

The government has already made unlawful changes to the pension scheme I joined up on, and now forced me onto a new one with no choice.

I don’t think for one second that further changes to my pension scheme won’t be made in the next decade-and any changes will not be for the better (and if past performance is anything to go by-possibly unlawful!)

Don’t get me wrong-even now it’s a good a scheme, but given my concerns/future uncertainty, I think it’s better i jump in a few years with what I’ve got, than stay in.

[Lima Juliet]

it is because of this very reason I will be leaving at (and perhaps before) my EDP pension point.

The government has already made unlawful changes to the pension scheme I joined up on, and now forced me onto a new one with no choice.

I don’t think for one second that further changes to my pension scheme won’t be made in the next decade-and any changes will not be for the better (and if past performance is anything to go by-possibly unlawful!)

Don’t get me wrong-even now it’s a good a scheme, but given my concerns/future uncertainty, I think it’s better i jump in a few years with what I’ve got, than stay in.

Don’t leave because of pension changes, or you will join my ‘bonkers’ brigade. Anything you have earned up until they make a change is yours - it cannot be changed. They can only change things now and in the future. So leaving at EDP because they might change something in the future makes no sense at all - every year you stay past EDP, where they don’t change it, is more EDP and pension later. However, if you’re leaving at EDP because you’re fed up, fancy a change, your personal life has changed or you need the money, then fine, but for goodness sake don’t leave because they might change the pension that you might earn in the future.

By the way, there was nothing unlawful about the pension changes to AFPS15 either. The thing that was unlawful was how they offered ‘legacy pension rights’ to some, and not to others, plus offered AFPS15 to some and not others. That was age discrimination, which is unlawful without good reason, and nothing to do with the pension itself.

Nil_Drift
As it is standard these days to have better things replaced with not so good, and PR-led headlines but important things still obscured by small print, my immediate concern on seeing that all would be going onto 15 from Apr 22 was that there is no Lump Sum with 15 at age 60. Therefore, what happens to those of us who have been on 75 for 40 years and, in the last couple of months get switched, compulsorily, on to a scheme that does not give a lump sum at age 60?

Firstly, there can be a lump sum on AFPS15 at age 60, but you have to surrender part of your pension to get it. Currently, for £1 of pension you surrender you get get £12 tax free lump sum. However, you can only convert a maximum of 25% in this way. So, if you have a pension of say £20,000, and you want to convert 25% which is £5,000, then you would get a reduced pension of £15,000 and a lump sum of £60,000 tax free.
Secondly, you can’t be on AFPS75 for 40 years - the maximum is 37 years for Other Ranks and 34 years for Officers. That is AFPS75 pension 1.01. You really should get your head in the books on this. It really isn’t hard - certainly easier to read than FRCs and Aircrew Manuals!
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/pensions-and-compensation-for-veterans

As for being transferred a few months before you retire, then you would likely get a few months of that new scheme. That is the way that it normally works.

[Nil_Drift]

LJ - thank you for taking the time to respond. I admit to having a "que sera sera" approach as I can't change anything. I'm approaching 42 years in uniform so I've just rounded some numbers for ease - I know that I won't get a pension for all of it but I made the decision to continue working to get the income even if it's not pensionable. However, I now look forward to the possibility of benefitting from 15 along with my full 75.
The contribution of all other PPRuNer's is also appreciated.

[Party Animal]

It's a good point. The difference now is that you can keep accruing a AFPS15 pension until age 60, growing at 1/47th (2.1%) of each year's salary. A full AFPS75 pension is roughly 50% of salary, so for index-linking to keep pace you'd need CPI to be running 4.2% higher than the annual pay award. I guess it might be possible for a year or two but it would be surprising if such a situation could last much longer than that.

Easy Street - I think you're wrong on 2 counts fella - which shows that confusion is still out there!

Firstly, there is no maximum number of years' Service that can count towards your pension, i.e, it is not capped at age 60 (page 6 of the AFPS15 booklet). I say this as I personally know of a few people extending beyond 60 (MEOS+) and still flying on the FL.

Secondly, for those on AFPS75 only, the previous dit on pensions being less at age 60, if you leave at that age, compared to leaving at 55 is accurate and doesn't need CPI to be anything like 4.2%. It just needs to be more than the annual pay rise. As a simplified example and using 50% pension and a salary of £60k:

Man A leaves at 55 with a £30k pension. If the CPI was %2.1, then his pension would be £30,630 at 56, £31,273 at 57, £31,929 at 58, £32,600 at 59 and £33,285 at age 60.

Man B stays in the RAF and gets a pay rise of 0%, 1%, 1%, 2% and 0% respectively up to the age of 60, whereby his pay would be £62,430. 50% of this = £31,215 at age 60.

So over the last 5 years, staying in from age 55 - 60 results in a significantly lesser pension for those old boys stuck on AFPS75. This is where McCloud changes everything and as others such as LJ has suggested, it is really good news for some of us.

On a final and just as happy note, I see the launch of 'Armed Forces Pension Awareness Week 2021' which is happening from 13-17 Sep 21. This should be able to answer all those 'unusual' or FAQ's that got missed - for those of us still serving. Add that to the new Pension Calculator predicted for October and we should be in a good position of understanding by the end of the year!

[Easy Street]

Easy Street - I think you're wrong on 2 counts fella - which shows that confusion is still out there!

Firstly, there is no maximum number of years' Service that can count towards your pension, i.e, it is not capped at age 60 (page 6 of the AFPS15 booklet). I say this as I personally know of a few people extending beyond 60 (MEOS+) and still flying on the FL.

I didn't mean to imply that AFPS15 ends at age 60, apologies if I gave that impression. Was just using 60 as the new 'standard' retirement age to indicate that additional accrual is possible.

Secondly, for those on AFPS75 only, the previous dit on pensions being less at age 60, if you leave at that age, compared to leaving at 55 is accurate and doesn't need CPI to be anything like 4.2%. It just needs to be more than the annual pay rise. As a simplified example and using 50% pension and a salary of £60k:

Man A leaves at 55 with a £30k pension. If the CPI was %2.1, then his pension would be £30,630 at 56, £31,273 at 57, £31,929 at 58, £32,600 at 59 and £33,285 at age 60.

Man B stays in the RAF and gets a pay rise of 0%, 1%, 1%, 2% and 0% respectively up to the age of 60, whereby his pay would be £62,430. 50% of this = £31,215 at age 60.

So over the last 5 years, staying in from age 55 - 60 results in a significantly lesser pension for those old boys stuck on AFPS75. This is where McCloud changes everything and as others such as LJ has suggested, it is really good news for some of us.

I'm not confused, that was precisely my point (you'll note I wrote "the difference now is..."). Even with a 5-year pay freeze, Man B in your example will now accrue an AFPS15 pension of 5 x 2.1% = 10.5% salary on top of his AFPS75 pension. This addition will outweigh index-linking of a 50% pension providing CPI remains less than 4.2% above any pay award.

[Countdown begins]

Everyone knows that the longer you serve the richer you are in your shorter retirement; that’s a given.
What do you guys think will happen once the calculator is up and running?
if you are somewhat better off moving back to your old scheme, is it the final part of the decision to leave? Plenty of talk about the pension and the money, but not so much on the quality of life and new challenges out there.
I ask because I had coffee with two fanatical lifers today, and both are changed people… they want figures to see if their guesstimates are close. Two institutionalised individuals have surprised me beyond belief. PAS pensions, low/ no mortgages and a thirst to live their lives.
We’re all different, but curious to know if they’re one offs or is the new calculator going to crash in the first 5 minutes.

[3 bladed beast]

For anyone that can give a best guess ( I'm going to wait for calculator, I'm joining pension society, will get formal calculation soon etc)

Joined mid 99 and should be leaving around December 22.

Stay on AFPS75 and get around 22 years plus a little on "2022" or get around 16 years on Afps75 and 7 on 2015?

Pas Flt Lt since around 2016....

[Easy Street]

For anyone that can give a best guess ( I'm going to wait for calculator, I'm joining pension society, will get formal calculation soon etc)

Joined mid 99 and should be leaving around December 22.

Stay on AFPS75 and get around 22 years plus a little on "2022" or get around 16 years on Afps75 and 7 on 2015?

Pas Flt Lt since around 2016....

You can use the current AFPS calculator to work out the second option, as that's currently the default position.

For the first option, the AFPS 75 portion can be worked out from the AFPS75 pension code tables (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/tri-service-pension-codes-april-2020):

Officers retired pay & lump sum (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/tri-service-pension-codes-april-2020/officers-retired-pay-and-lump-sum-benefits)
OF2 with 23 years (mid-99 to mid-2022) = £18769
PAS supplement (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/tri-service-pension-codes-april-2020/professional-aviator-supplements-april-2020)
6 years PAS x 365 days x £1.363 per day = £2985

Total AFPS75 immediate pension = £21,754 pa
Multiply by 3 for lump sum = £65,262

For the next bit there is no "AFPS22", it's just AFPS15 with a later start. Your deferred AFPS15 pension will be 2.1% of the salary you earn in the few months between the changeover date and your exit. Your additional tax free lump sum will be 2.25 times that. You will get an EDP instead of the pension until you're 60; it's about 1/3rd of the deferred pension.

Your choice probably depends when you want the money. You might get more per year after age 60 if you switch to AFPS15 in 2015, but then you'll probably get less in the meantime due to the abating effect of the AFPS15 EDP. See what the calculator says.

[Lima Juliet]

I agree Easy Street :ok:

I just did a rough AFPS75/15 calculation on the calculator out of interest for the rough timeline that 3 bladed beast provided and it gives:

£18.8k combined IPP and EDP
£70k tax free lump sum
A pension of £26k at State Pension Age (valued at 2021 worth)

So, for some that may be more attractive than the pure AFPS75 that you calculated. You can also inversely commute the £26.5k of the tax free lump sum generated by AFPS15 to generate another £5.8k of EDP to give a revised figure of:

£24.6k combined IPP and EDP
£43.5k tax free lump sum
A pension of £26k at State Pension Age

Which for some may be better again.

A lot of people bleat and whine about AFPS15, when they really haven’t done the maths properly. It’s still a damned good deal!!!

[Lima Juliet]

I saw some bad news today, the McCloud Calculator will not be out until early 2022. It’s taking a while to get it right. It’s not surprising really as there have been some significant pay and condition changes over the past 6 years - PAY16, NEM, PAS Level changes, etc…etc…

[Just This Once...]

Does this mean we still have to wait to submit our choice? I'm ready to pick right now.

[Mr N Nimrod]

Everyone knows that the longer you serve the richer you are in your shorter retirement; that’s a given.
What do you guys think will happen once the calculator is up and running?
if you are somewhat better off moving back to your old scheme, is it the final part of the decision to leave? Plenty of talk about the pension and the money, but not so much on the quality of life and new challenges out there.
I ask because I had coffee with two fanatical lifers today, and both are changed people… they want figures to see if their guesstimates are close. Two institutionalised individuals have surprised me beyond belief. PAS pensions, low/ no mortgages and a thirst to live their lives.
We’re all different, but curious to know if they’re one offs or is the new calculator going to crash in the first 5 minutes.
sounds like two fanatical ‘lifers’ who are now not so fanatical after seeing the real figures - usually means the chiselers who are better off staying in

[popeye107]

Sounds like the updated calculator is delayed til March at the earliest.

[Common_Sense]

Any news on this?

[Bob Viking]

I think the belief at HQ is that nobody would dare leave the military during COVID so nobody cares enough about their pension to bother with forecasts. We’re all just lucky to have a job and should be grateful.

BV

(I’m not usually so cynical and critical but over the pensions issue I feel the MOD have been an absolute disgrace).