AFPS15 - government decision.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: UK - sometimes
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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How would the system go about compensating people who made life decisions based on an offer that subsequently gets withdrawn?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.
How would the system go about compensating people who made life decisions based on an offer that subsequently gets withdrawn?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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chigley
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Last edited by Jambo Jet; 4th Dec 2019 at 07:37.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
.. 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.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
* 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.
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.
* 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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chigley
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
”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.
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.
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/...CQPHtqhGH-Viqg
My feelings were hurt.
https://www.fbu.org.uk/news/2019/12/...CQPHtqhGH-Viqg
Last edited by Countdown begins; 20th Dec 2019 at 19:34.
I'm sure that's what they will do, but between complex pensions and bewildering tax issues the choice won't be easy
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
”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.
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.
