The Way We Treat Widows
The Way We Treat Widows
The disaster area of AFPS75 widows' pensions ceasing on cohabitation or remarriage continues but I was still shocked to see how we handle the matter when the MoD considers that a new relationship has crossed the hazy line that is 'cohabitation':
Truly terrible.
Will the recent ruling mean that this will continue to happen for those of us that will move to AFPS75/15?
"I was woken up by the MOD police knocking on my door. I had four officers in my house, one of them read me my rights and told me he was arresting me for two counts of fraud and one for money laundering. I was shocked to my core, as I really wasn't aware that I had done anything out of place. I was taken by car to a police station where I was formally arrested, searched and booked in, then held in a cell. Once a duty solicitor arrived he told me why I was there"
Truly terrible.
Will the recent ruling mean that this will continue to happen for those of us that will move to AFPS75/15?
In terms of the example in the OPs quote, I'm surprised that the MOD Police were that informed, considering that when most people leave the services they just disappear off the MOD's radar.
It would appear this issue has been rectified in AFPS 05, I take it that it hasn't crept back in in AFPS 15?
It would appear this issue has been rectified in AFPS 05, I take it that it hasn't crept back in in AFPS 15?
Can someone please clarify...........
Is Widows pension a standard amount irrespective of years of service depending on rank ? or are there other issues in play ?
Is Widows pension a standard amount irrespective of years of service depending on rank ? or are there other issues in play ?
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: oxford
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lj - Thanks
See what you mean and obvious other regs that not shown on that document.
Can understand some of the MODs viewpoint as did know a young lady who married at 16, if she lost her hubby when she is 19 then should state pay Pension benefit until she dies at 91 ? or 24 times the length of her marraige.
Above is playing devils advocate but can see it both ways and not sure which is right.
See what you mean and obvious other regs that not shown on that document.
Can understand some of the MODs viewpoint as did know a young lady who married at 16, if she lost her hubby when she is 19 then should state pay Pension benefit until she dies at 91 ? or 24 times the length of her marraige.
Above is playing devils advocate but can see it both ways and not sure which is right.
I guess there has to be some rules.
Like the one where I was pensioned after Premature Voluntary Retirement (PVR) in 1974 but, if and when I die, my wife gets nothing..... nor would have even if I had Premature Nonvoluntary Expired (PNE) earlier.
Like the one where I was pensioned after Premature Voluntary Retirement (PVR) in 1974 but, if and when I die, my wife gets nothing..... nor would have even if I had Premature Nonvoluntary Expired (PNE) earlier.
Davita: Like the one where I was pensioned after Premature Voluntary Retirement (PVR) in 1974 but, if and when I die, my wife gets nothing..... nor would have even if I had Premature Nonvoluntary Expired (PNE) earlier
Thats why Mrs D has strict instuctions to pop me into the chest freezer when I depart this life!
Thats why Mrs D has strict instuctions to pop me into the chest freezer when I depart this life!
hahaha good one dctyke...sadly mrs davita has more use for her freezer and anyway, here in Bali, it is sacred for the deceased to be ceremoniously BBQd.
I've given strict instructions for this and to make sure the ceremony holds up the traffic for at least an hour....revenge is sweet!!!
Better still...I'll pre-address the envelope for the ashes to go to MOD Widow's Pension Dept. as evidence they can cancel the pension......now where is that address?
I've given strict instructions for this and to make sure the ceremony holds up the traffic for at least an hour....revenge is sweet!!!
Better still...I'll pre-address the envelope for the ashes to go to MOD Widow's Pension Dept. as evidence they can cancel the pension......now where is that address?
hahaha good one dctyke...sadly mrs davita has more use for her freezer and anyway, here in Bali, it is sacred for the deceased to be ceremoniously BBQd.
I've given strict instructions for this and to make sure the ceremony holds up the traffic for at least an hour....revenge is sweet!!!
I've given strict instructions for this and to make sure the ceremony holds up the traffic for at least an hour....revenge is sweet!!!
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Racedo I did draft a reply earlier but see my point has been covered. Aside from the 16 year old widow, how about the 30 years old, #2 wife of the 54 year old VSO? Now she would be quids in provided #1 wife didn't stake a claim. In the case I am thinking of, wife #1 was cohabiting/married before her ex retired so #2 would cop the lot.
On AFPS75, my understanding is that Mrs PN will get 50% of my uncommuted pension after 6 months. Until that time I believe she continues to get my existing pension.
In the case of my MiL OTOH she is 86 and in receipt of a small company pension. Should she begin to cohabit with a very old friend she would lose that pension. When he dies, which is likely to be quite soon, his pension from police service, would cease and she would be left on a state pension alone. That is the iniquity.
On AFPS75, my understanding is that Mrs PN will get 50% of my uncommuted pension after 6 months. Until that time I believe she continues to get my existing pension.
In the case of my MiL OTOH she is 86 and in receipt of a small company pension. Should she begin to cohabit with a very old friend she would lose that pension. When he dies, which is likely to be quite soon, his pension from police service, would cease and she would be left on a state pension alone. That is the iniquity.
PN
Yup it sucks, designed to screw people for benefit of pension scheme.
Have various bits and pieces of pensions that will combine into one policy but decided better off putting cash into property than pension as least can be passed on without Govt taking out of it.
Gave up trusting Govts on pension schemes well before Brown raid. Figured it was an easy target to raid, people wouldn't complain that much as it was 20 years afterwards where the real implications are understood.
Yup it sucks, designed to screw people for benefit of pension scheme.
Have various bits and pieces of pensions that will combine into one policy but decided better off putting cash into property than pension as least can be passed on without Govt taking out of it.
Gave up trusting Govts on pension schemes well before Brown raid. Figured it was an easy target to raid, people wouldn't complain that much as it was 20 years afterwards where the real implications are understood.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orpington
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Live in sin
As someone on a private companies pension, the rules on mine are as follows.
Wife will get half of my pension, should I pop my clogs. If she was to remarry, the pension from my fund would stop.
So wives, if you husband goes to the passing out parade in the sky, live in sin.
Wife will get half of my pension, should I pop my clogs. If she was to remarry, the pension from my fund would stop.
So wives, if you husband goes to the passing out parade in the sky, live in sin.
That's not the way I read it. According to post no 1 , cohabiting would bring about the same result. What I find interesting is that the 05 and 15 schemes don't have this clause. Not only that but I vaguely remember some bad press about it all a while back and the minister of the day having to say that the anomaly was removed (or did I dream it all?).
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Vasco, one yes, two no, or the other way around depending on which is cheaper.
In terms of numbers, there will be more people under AFPS75 drawing a pension and probably many widows not now in receipt of a pension.
Under AFPS05 numbers will ultimately be fewer and the current numbers very low.
Under AFPS15 numbers will be even lower, no one is drawing a pension and it is a problem for the future.
In other words, changing the AFPS75 rules would have a very real cost, administratively if would take time, effort, and costs to implement. Widows may have remarried and changed names; some may have changed remarried more than once. Checking eligibility would be a mammoth task similar to the Arctic Star and Bomber Command clasp.
By delaying they can reduce the size and cost to negligible proportions.
Cynic? Moi, surely not.
In terms of numbers, there will be more people under AFPS75 drawing a pension and probably many widows not now in receipt of a pension.
Under AFPS05 numbers will ultimately be fewer and the current numbers very low.
Under AFPS15 numbers will be even lower, no one is drawing a pension and it is a problem for the future.
In other words, changing the AFPS75 rules would have a very real cost, administratively if would take time, effort, and costs to implement. Widows may have remarried and changed names; some may have changed remarried more than once. Checking eligibility would be a mammoth task similar to the Arctic Star and Bomber Command clasp.
By delaying they can reduce the size and cost to negligible proportions.
Cynic? Moi, surely not.
