No Dependents' Pension for unmarried mother
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Thread Starter
No Dependents' Pension for unmarried mother
I have been asked to post this very sad and salutary story of an unmarried mother whose young children will not benefit from their mother's AFPS75 Pension.
The link is here:
https://www.qutee.com/q/dying-ex-raf-mum-denied-pension-for-kids
Essentially she served for 20 years, left the RAF and then decided to have children but did not marry. She has cancer with a poor prognosis and no parents or relatives that can help.
The link is here:
https://www.qutee.com/q/dying-ex-raf-mum-denied-pension-for-kids
Essentially she served for 20 years, left the RAF and then decided to have children but did not marry. She has cancer with a poor prognosis and no parents or relatives that can help.
Last edited by Pontius Navigator; 24th Sep 2018 at 20:08.
Sad state of affairs. Sammi and I were the same branch. Is this the case with AFPS 75 pensions? That once you leave it stops with you?? If she were married, would a husband receive any AFPS 75 benefits after leaving the RAF? Any pensions gurus here in the know?
Hope Sam's children get some justice after all this!
Hope Sam's children get some justice after all this!
I am afraid that AFPS 75 is an old fashioned scheme which requires that children be children of a marriage which took place before leaving the Armed Forces.
If she were married, her husband could be entitled to benefits. She would have had to serve on or after 1 October 1987 to qualify. If the marriage took place after she left the Armed Forces, the pension would be based on service on and after 6 April 1978 only.
If she were married, her husband could be entitled to benefits. She would have had to serve on or after 1 October 1987 to qualify. If the marriage took place after she left the Armed Forces, the pension would be based on service on and after 6 April 1978 only.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Thread Starter
I am afraid that AFPS 75 is an old fashioned scheme which requires that children be children of a marriage which took place before leaving the Armed Forces.
If she were married, her husband could be entitled to benefits. She would have had to serve on or after 1 October 1987 to qualify. If the marriage took place after she left the Armed Forces, the pension would be based on service on and after 6 April 1978 only.
If she were married, her husband could be entitled to benefits. She would have had to serve on or after 1 October 1987 to qualify. If the marriage took place after she left the Armed Forces, the pension would be based on service on and after 6 April 1978 only.
The issue is that her future pension payments, and others in a similar situation, will revert to the exchequer and not NOK. Is it not time to amend such restrictive clauses?
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Thread Starter
Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson said: “I was deeply saddened to hear of these tragic circumstances. Since learning about this case I have instructed the Department to reverse this decision. I hope that this gives Sammi, her son and daughter the peace of mind that they deserve, knowing they have financial security for the future. They remain in our thoughts.”
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Horsham, England, UK. ---o--O--o---
Posts: 1,185
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
I'm quite shocked! Thank you, Minister.
I'm liking the cut of his jib...
I'm liking the cut of his jib...
I think Williamson is an improvement on many a Defence minister. He might be courting popularity with the armed forces but Hey! we could do with a bucket load of popularity courting.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Closer than you think...
Age: 65
Posts: 390
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good, well done that Man. Finally a Minister with a good dose of common sense and decency plus he's the Defence Minister to boot. Sadly I fear he wont be long in the job once the rest work out he's a good un!
And I wish Sammi and her children luck for the future.
And I wish Sammi and her children luck for the future.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Thread Starter
I don't know what those serving think of the top team but they do seem to be effective. I remember Swiss Des, a lawyer, more concerned with CYA than Defence. His H&S Policy Statement, to be pinned on every notice board ran to about 8 pages, double that of Dr Reid. Did he imagine anyone would wade through that load of turgid legalisee.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: South Africa
Age: 87
Posts: 1,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Thread Starter
Military is a strange beast. When FAA went for a cruise the women folk were allowed to remain in married quarters. The spouses of those sent into combat however had to vamoose from MQ pronto - 1970.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Thread Starter
Megan, indeed, but things do change, back in the 50s the RAF, and other services, were much larger and there was still a shortage of MQ, or indeed many civilian houses. The RAF had many overseas billets and a similar shortage of MQ. As a consequence many posted overseas were for 12 month unaccompanied.
Those married with sufficient points were allocated MQ at remote stations.
Those married with sufficient points were allocated MQ at remote stations.
To be a dissenting voice here, and I mean no ill wishes to Sammi or her children, it is an awful situation but there is a real danger in the principle of changing the 'rules' of a long established scheme such as this.
Sammi served and was given the option during the OTT period in 2004 I would think, along with every other serving member, and presumably made a conscious decision not to take the '05 pension.
I do not know her pension arrangements when she left the service; did she do the full commutation thing as the '75 pension allowed you to do?
She was a member of a scheme that is archaic in its remit, but that was her choice.
Having children via IVF was also her choice. That's great, let women have control of their lives where children are concerned. Having given birth to the children has she taken any form of long term high value life insurance out in the event that she should die before they fly the nest? To be honest that was my main driver for juping into the '05 scheme. The Qutee article suggests not. I would be happy to be corrected, but frankly I think she has created this situation.
The other issue that bothers me is that Mr Williamson, sympathetic and on-side individual that he is, has now set a precedent where the '75 scheme, and the '05 scheme and probablythe '15 scheme can now all be changed to meet a 'need'. In the case of Sammi and her children the 'need' is obvious, but just think what would happen should a future DefSec have a 'need' to save a lot of money?
Sammi served and was given the option during the OTT period in 2004 I would think, along with every other serving member, and presumably made a conscious decision not to take the '05 pension.
I do not know her pension arrangements when she left the service; did she do the full commutation thing as the '75 pension allowed you to do?
She was a member of a scheme that is archaic in its remit, but that was her choice.
Having children via IVF was also her choice. That's great, let women have control of their lives where children are concerned. Having given birth to the children has she taken any form of long term high value life insurance out in the event that she should die before they fly the nest? To be honest that was my main driver for juping into the '05 scheme. The Qutee article suggests not. I would be happy to be corrected, but frankly I think she has created this situation.
The other issue that bothers me is that Mr Williamson, sympathetic and on-side individual that he is, has now set a precedent where the '75 scheme, and the '05 scheme and probablythe '15 scheme can now all be changed to meet a 'need'. In the case of Sammi and her children the 'need' is obvious, but just think what would happen should a future DefSec have a 'need' to save a lot of money?