2todo

Judges win pension case

Recommended Posts

Can of worms. Huge can of worms. I said so when this claim was first lodged. Reading the article you could substitute the word "judge" with "police officer" and not see any difference to the way younger in service bobbies have been treated.

 

This is massive news. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And where are the naysayers on this forum now? Should we still believe in the sage wisdom of the Fed that our contributions are best spent on meals and luxury for their brass than protecting our pensions?

Is there still no legal recourse? Is it still fair? And yes I am still seething at things I read posted here about it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think there were many 'naysayers' on here? Most people were/are fairly supportive. 

This is good news for the Pension Challenge and a step in the right direction. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, 2todo said:

http:: of the Tribunal f//www.bbc.co.uk/news/businebuavailables ice available818

will t he Fed now jump  on the bandwagon and claim the win from LD?

The Federation will do what they always do, seek the best legal advice possibkle. That will include the deciusion of the Tribunal and utilise that to the best. The Judges have the final legal miknds available, so why not.?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you believe the fed are still trying to make out that this may effect transitional arrangements!! As a last stand to their approach to just accept HMG s imposition of the new scheme and say, we got some protection that's all we could do!!

Its obvious that if transitional and full protection are discrimination on grounds of age, then to ensure NO discrimination the only approach is to close the schemes to new entrants on 2015 and allow all current members to remain!!

The fed are hinting that transitional protection could be removed, but full protection is okay????? Talk about being in denial!!

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, niccop said:

Can you believe the fed are still trying to make out that this may effect transitional arrangements!! As a last stand to their approach to just accept HMG s imposition of the new scheme and say, we got some protection that's all we could do!!

Its obvious that if transitional and full protection are discrimination on grounds of age, then to ensure NO discrimination the only approach is to close the schemes to new entrants on 2015 and allow all current members to remain!!

The fed are hinting that transitional protection could be removed, but full protection is okay????? Talk about being in denial!!

 

 

 

 

Not quite the only approach. In the judgement conclusion, the judge stated that whilst it wasn't the tribunal's job to design a judicial pension scheme, the govt had had two options, both of which would have avoided discrimination.  One was to keep everyone on the old scheme - however the govt said that that would have been too expensive. The second approach was to put everyone on the new scheme on the 1st April 2015 regardless. No protection or tapering, everyone goes on it. The judge stated that to do that would have avoided any cost implications. 

No prizes for guessing which of the two options the govt would prefer. 

I did suggest that as a way forward on the Pension Challenge thread! Maybe the judge read it! 

Ironically, in an attempt to appease the unions, it appears that the Govt were talked into adopting discriminatory proposals! And they thought they were doing the right thing. 

If the Pension Challenge win their fight (seems a lot more likely now), it would be a real kick in the teeth if the result was that everyone went on the new scheme and all tapering was removed. 

Nice to see you back anyway Niccop, how have you been keeping? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what I'm afraid of cheese, it will be a race to the bottom. I wonder how those officers with full protection will feel with a couple of years or less to go if, and I appreciate it's an if, the Govt say "Righto, we tried to help but have this instead". Will those officers who challenged feel rather pleased with themselves? Will they be eternally grateful that there is no discrimination?  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got less than four to go until my full 30 but am pensionable by age and service this year. Suffice to say I'll be keeping a very close eye on how this develops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have just read the judgement (sad I know) and I have real concerns about the possible outcome. If you read paragraph 120 it clearly states that one option was for ALL judges to be moved onto the new scheme on the 1st April 2015 - in that way there would be no age discrimination at all. That would mean NO protection for anybody, including those with less that 10 years until retirement (as they are included in the transitional arrangements) as well as those with tapered protection.

I came on here expecting to lambast the Feds response but, having read the ruling, I actually share their concerns. This ruling may give the Govt the opportunity to in essence 'shaft' everybody. Those with no protection at all will have gained nothing (they will be in exactly the same position that they were before) while those with either full or tapered protection will lose that protection. The government  save a shed load of cash and the law firms make a nice killing.

Of course that is only one possible outcome but it does state that this was Hutton's original recommendation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, archermav said:

This is what I'm afraid of cheese, it will be a race to the bottom. I wonder how those officers with full protection will feel with a couple of years or less to go if, and I appreciate it's an if, the Govt say "Righto, we tried to help but have this instead". Will those officers who challenged feel rather pleased with themselves? Will they be eternally grateful that there is no discrimination?  

No, I don't expect they would.  The difference would be that we would all be in it together then and perhaps there would be some unity and different avenues could be explored such as legitimate expectation and the linked s2 PPA rights.  Yes, I know "legal opinion" was that we would not win on these grounds, but that same "legal opinion" also said the discrimination was lawful and it appears they were wrong on that front.  

 

The Government done a fantastic job dividing us all so that those in the National Fed, who are mostly in the protected bracket, would not challenge this.  Well, if it's the case now that they're also going to be shafted then perhaps they'll have a change of direction.  Whether that entails going down the "right to strike" route or some other legal avenue remains to be seen, but I doubt very much they will sit on their hands and accept the theft of our pensions when it also affects them.  

 

And bear in mind, if they went down the second avenue outlined by Cheese (which I don't think they could do using that date, as it would then apply retrospectively), they would also need to apply this to every other public sector worker including Civil Servants.  Can you imagine the uproar if they done that?  

 

I would suggest what's likely to happen is they'll appeal it.  At some point in the future if the ruling goes against them then they'll need to draft new proposals which would set a date when everyone goes onto the new scheme and until that date they will need to honour the old arrangements each affected person signed up to.  As far as I believe, the ruling was based on the actual age protection as opposed to those within 10 years of retirement as applied to everyone else in the public sector, so potentially it is only applicable to the Judges, the Police and the Fire Service, not everyone else, thereby limiting the financial burden.  

 

Time will tell, but one thing is a certainty.  The federation will have egg on their face when this is over.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Grumpy2 said:

No, I don't expect they would.  The difference would be that we would all be in it together then and perhaps there would be some unity and different avenues could be explored such as legitimate expectation and the linked s2 PPA rights.  Yes, I know "legal opinion" was that we would not win on these grounds, but that same "legal opinion" also said the discrimination was lawful and it appears they were wrong on that front.  

There is no Section 2. It was repealed and therefore is completely null and void as any other piece of repealed legislation. The Pension Challenge people (presumably advised by Leigh Day) have accepted that the Govt can and do change legislation all the time. 

The Government done a fantastic job dividing us all so that those in the National Fed, who are mostly in the protected bracket, would not challenge this.  Well, if it's the case now that they're also going to be shafted then perhaps they'll have a change of direction.  Whether that entails going down the "right to strike" route or some other legal avenue remains to be seen, but I doubt very much they will sit on their hands and accept the theft of our pensions when it also affects them.  

Yes possibly. Though they seem to be barricading themselves in at the moment and have pulled up the drawbridge. Having said that, there are real concerns that what they say may well pan out to be true. 

And bear in mind, if they went down the second avenue outlined by Cheese (which I don't think they could do using that date, as it would then apply retrospectively), they would also need to apply this to every other public sector worker including Civil Servants.  Can you imagine the uproar if they done that?  

Yes and no. According to the Pension Challenge bods, the Fire Service and Police were the most heavily affected. People in the other schemes were only lightly affected by the changes and in some cases, better off. So maybe they wouldn't be as bothered.

I would suggest what's likely to happen is they'll appeal it.  At some point in the future if the ruling goes against them then they'll need to draft new proposals which would set a date when everyone goes onto the new scheme and until that date they will need to honour the old arrangements each affected person signed up to.  As far as I believe, the ruling was based on the actual age protection as opposed to those within 10 years of retirement as applied to everyone else in the public sector, so potentially it is only applicable to the Judges, the Police and the Fire Service, not everyone else, thereby limiting the financial burden.  

No, the ruling was based on the simple fact that one group was treated more favourably and another was treated less favourably, solely due to their age. That would apply to every single public sector scheme.

Why will they need to honour the old scheme? The simplest way of doing it will be to transfer everyone to the CARE scheme immediately. That's the best way of avoiding further discrimination and thus further claims. It's also the cheapest. Then they can sort out the detail.  To be honest, that's what should have happened at the start - they should have implemented Hutton's proposals to the letter instead of giving in to the unions. Still hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Don't forget that these changes were to do with austerity. We are now five years down the line and austerity hasn't really panned out, so we are still not in a fantastic place financially. The point being that there isn't really the money to say 'oh go on, you can have your old scheme(s) back'. I imagine that they'll want to do the cheapest option that avoids further litigation. 

Time will tell, but one thing is a certainty.  The federation will have egg on their face when this is over.  

Possibly. Though what if what they are saying (that everyone might lose their tapering and protection) turns out to be true? 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It,s all coming together nicely - the ruling has nothing to with whether HMG can afford it. Justice will be done, everyone will eventually get the pensions they expected, even the oldies that will have to now sweat a bit like the guy who wrote the fed response! 😀

The pensions will be nothing compared to the accumulative cost if Brexit!

That's all folks, I'll be back in another couple of years when the final outcome has been confirmed! 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, niccop said:

It,s all coming together nicely - the ruling has nothing to with whether HMG can afford it. Justice will be done, everyone will eventually get the pensions they expected, even the oldies that will have to now sweat a bit like the guy who wrote the fed response! 😀

The pensions will be nothing compared to the accumulative cost if Brexit!

That's all folks, I'll be back in another couple of years when the final outcome has been confirmed! 

 

I hope you are right, but sadly Niccop your last assessment of Sec 2 failed to materialise, so I don't have a huge amount of faith in your opinion. I can see this going horribly wrong for a lot of people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are 24 hidden replies in this thread that you do not currently have access to as a Guest User of our forum. To unlock the forum register for an account for FREE today by clicking HERE

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.