Resident Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


tigers66 last won the day on January 4 2016

tigers66 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

32 Fair

About tigers66

  • Rank
    Forum Member
  1. lifting of pension cap

    Hi Billys, I don't suppose you can get it exact, but here is a link to how to calulate, http://www.myownpension.co.uk/pages/pol_1987_BOR.htm You can roughly work out the annual pension without lump sum on here using the less than 30 button. Bear in mind commutation figures have uplifted since. http://www.policebenefits.co.uk/pension_scheme/pension/pps_guide.html New commutation factors are here on pg 14 http://www.policesupers.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Police-EW-1987-Scheme-commutation-guidance-18-March-2016.pdf
  2. lifting of pension cap

    Hi, has anyone heard of a firm date on this?
  3. lifting of pension cap

    No this thread/article relates only to the 1987 scheme and the option to take a greater lump sum if retiring from age 50 with more than 25 yrs service. I believe this will come in sometime in/around January. Previously it was 2.5 times your pension if leaving before 30 yrs/age 55
  4. lifting of pension cap

    There are quite a few officers interested in retiring earlier in my force now the option to take 25% into commutation is on the horizon if opting to go with more than 25 yrs service and aged over 50. The discretion is more likely to do with the rush to leave, forces needing to manage numbers I guess.
  5. Public Holidays via NPCC

    They do RM, if PH is Sat or Sun, you get the extra one on the Mon & or Tues.
  6. Public Holidays via NPCC

    It's all well and good saying all officers will get compensated with an extra 9 days leave, but getting leave authorised is getting harder and harder, and with a max of 5 days carry over some will lose it. If this comes in.
  7. Pension Challenge

    I agree, and i guess the govt will say that is a benefit of the CARE scheme as opposed to our final salary one in the 87 scheme !! If I wanted to factor in at least 1% pay increases each year say from the end of the current govt, to the above the sums, they should increase quite well. But that would take me forever !! I'm sure anyone clever on excel could do it.
  8. Pension Challenge

    So as an example, if the pay scales of today were fixed (best way to calculate, obviously pay will increase we hope over the next few years !!) Using the 2015 scheme accrual rate of 1/55.3 means that someone joining the job as a new starter at age 20 and retiring at 60 may get either (IF my sums are right?) I've also assumed no one starts on the diabolical 19578, as most forces have opted to not use this i believe. an annual pension of £25966.15 or take commutation and reduce the pension to an annual £19474.61 and a lump sum taken of £77898.42 if that person starting is aged 25 annual pension £22565.14 or reduced to £16923.11 and lump sum of £67692.42 and so on the less service served up to age 60. Please correct me if I'm wrong. This is only based on using the current PC pay scale and does not factor in any pay increases. This is definitely not pension advice or predictions, my working out alone.
  9. Pension Challenge

    I do understand your point, and it is not good that a decent pension calculator for the new scheme has not been provided for you to have a reasonable idea what you may receive. Pension administrators need this addressing asap.
  10. Pension Challenge

    You say you don't know when you can actually retire but the scheme clearly does tell you, from 55 or up to age 60. Like I said above, I'm not saying it's fair and I totally agree with you about it should have been a scheme that starts for new joiners a or anyone who wished to transfer into it. In addition someone mention section 2 protection. Obviously that wasn't as strong as we thought, the govt can repeal it yet honour the rule up to that point by making all accrued pension up to that point safe. Again a clever move to not fall foul of the legislation.
  11. Pension Challenge

    I think I have just worked out why it isn't age discrimination. Chiefs post above, an example I have heard before and thought yes it does sound like it. However as I put in a previous post by definition an age is attached to pensions, in the case of police 55. Now turn the example around and instead of looking at it from the starting point, in the above two people aged 19 & 37, but look at the end. Both have a retirement age of 55, no discrimination there, except naturally officer aged 37 is already closer to retirement. In the new care scheme originally retirement age was fixed at 60, but the ace played is when the amendment was added to still have the option to retire at 55. Therefore the argument is void possibly in law as retirement at 55 is still available to everyone. Now I'm not saying it's fair, but I think looking from the end rather than the start might be how the govt thought to be safe??
  12. Pension Challenge

    I think the Fed Hq have made it clear why they will not fund anyone's legal challenge, because of the advice that any success is unlikely. If it were possible they would have done it collectively, not individually. They quite rightly shouldn't chuck money after something that is probably a waste of time and money. I know a lot of the challenge is based on age discrimination, but by nature pensions are based on age by fact you have to be a certain age to receive them. I agree that in principle the care scheme should have been for new joiners from the start of the scheme, and everyone else stay where they are up to that point. Just like when the 2006 scheme came in. However that was not the govt's starting point, and any concessions given in form of protection and tapering will always have to have a cut off point, and the fed did achieve some extensions on the tapering. Not so long back there was an upgrading when male police pensioners got a windfall due to a rating difference between men and women. That had a cut off point and I know some who missed out on the cash by days and weeks. There was no appeal, no challenge, they were the rules. Unfortunately the new pension is similar I guess by the way of a cut off point.
  13. Pension Challenge

    On the link is the summary from David READE QC for Neon Legal who were instructed by Region 2 independently to also review the new care scheme for police. Their overall conclusion is there is no challenge, there are more detailed conclusions at the end and he addresses age claims there too. He qualifies if a successful claim is made it is for the transitional arrangements only and his view is that they are not illegal. http://www.norpolfed.org.uk/pubs/150923.pdf
  14. Pension Challenge

    The Fed never have had any rights or power to negotiate on pensions. All the govt did was to seek their view, they don't have to listen and on the whole didn't. Pensions was their decision and I genuinely sympathize for those who have had their pensions changed, but the Fed agreed to nothing. Moving onto Zulu's observations, I never knew the same firm are the same ones trying to sue our brave soldiers. For those challenging I wish you well, though I do know legal advice from other quarters says it has little chance of success. I fear that if Leigh Day get success that the govt would appeal any decision and IF the govt win any appeal all costs would then fall on those who made the appeal. I hope the insurance taken out covers appeals also. That sum could be in the millions, as both sides costs would fall onto those challenging in that scenario.
  15. Pension Challenge

    I've observed this debate for a while, I admire those who want to challenge the changes, but there are two points that come with a health warning I would say. 1. I believe it is true that if the government think they will lose they would remove all tapering for everyone in all public services so it becomes 'equal'. As this challenge is an employment tribunal, not a pension act challenge (tribunal based on a discrimination age,sex, race etc). The argument is that the tapering isn't equal due to those factors. 2. And this is the fear I'd have if i were part of the challenge and had signed up. You may be protected by some policy or cover for Leigh Days costs, but you are not for the costs should it go to appeal if the govt lost (Which it surely would). If the govt then win any said appeal their costs and fees etc would be passed to the other side, that is the claimants, and that has the potential to be massive. Like I say, I admire those who wish to take the risk, I'm am fortunate and have just over 2 to go, but if I was the other side of the line I'd be very nervous about it all.