We have detected that your browser is using AdBlock

Police Community is a not for profit organisation and advertising revenue is key to our continued viability.

Please disable your AdBlocker on our site in order to continue using it.
This message will disappear once AdBlock has been disabled.

Thank you for your support - we appreciate it !

If you feel you are getting this message in error please email support@policecommunity.co.uk


Resident Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Sheds last won the day on October 4 2015

Sheds had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

28 Fair

About Sheds

  • Rank
    Forum Member

Recent Profile Visitors

570 profile views
  1. Sheds

    Pension Politics

    I believe you can go at 25 yrs and over 50 but you will only get the protected bit of your 1987 pension immediately - looking at your circumstances, instead of getting the 30/60ths you would have got if fully protected it is more likely to be 28/60ths or similar. Your 2.25 commutation (under the 1987 scheme), if you wish to take it, will also be slightly down as the pot you're commuting from is slightly down. The little bit you've got in the 2015 scheme you won't see until SPA (67 in your case, I think) as the 2015 scheme's normal pension age is 60 (although you can take it at a reduced level of around 80% at 55). You may be able to claim it earlier than 67 but it will be much reduced (depending how early you take it). I'm pretty sure I'm right on this as you have protected accrued rights under the 87 scheme so the retirement 'rules' remain the same. However, as Zulu and RM have said I would contact your Fed office and/or your pension administrator just to confirm and also to give you the exact numbers.
  2. Sheds

    lifting of pension cap

    Moby, Yorkshire is right - VR is completely separate to the pension cap issue. I'm hoping my force may offer both at the same time - if so, those with 25+ years in and over 50 would also get 6 months pay (under VR) and be able to commute 25% (under the lifting of the cap) of their reduced pot. Still no way as good as getting to the full 30 and the job would save loads but it would make it even more attractive.
  3. Sheds

    lifting of pension cap

    This was ratified a year ago - does anyone know if any forces have offered it yet? To me it makes sense for forces to offer it, even if they have to borrow money in the short term. If you go at 25 years service then they save one quarter on the lump sum and one quarter on monthly pension for as long as you live past retirement (as you would be giving up 10 increments so going on a half pension rather than a two thirds pension, before commutation). Add on to that not having to pay a wage for 5 years (albeit the job would be paying the reduced pension for that time and you would have to subtract that from what you would have earned if still employed) and also housing allowance for 5 years for many who still get it then the savings are pretty big in the medium term and even bigger in the longer term. Offering the increased commutation (although less than you would get at 30 years) will be re-couped pretty quickly by forces. I honestly can't understand why more have not offered it due to the savings that would be made.
  4. Sheds

    Resignation !!

    Dazzler, Cheese as ever is spot on. I would add also that things are changing so quickly that there is every chance you may be able to get a voluntary reducancy payment. As long as you're 18 months away from being 50 you will get 21 months pay - some tax likely to pay on it- and then you will get your 87 pension at 50. More reason to hold on for 2 years and/or go part time. South Yorks have just offered it and I think most forces will look at it at some stage.
  5. Sheds

    Judges win pension case

    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.
  6. Sheds

    COMPULSORY SEVERANCE: The mother lode

    We've had the same in our force - and incentives are being offered to potential transferees - I agree it is all a bit of a farce. However, I am told that some forces saw this coming and planned accordingly (maybe those who offered VS when it first came out??).
  7. Sheds

    COMPULSORY SEVERANCE: The mother lode

    VS and early retirement with no detriment (including commuting 25% of lump sum) would both save serious amounts of money - esp. in the medium term. They might have to find some money up front but would soon claw this back (and much more) as people would be giving up double increments/housing allowance (in some cases)/top of pay scale wages etc. etc. Any sensible Chief Constable would recognise the huge savings that could be made - the main problem I see is that they have not planned for this and I think so many people would go for it that they would not be able to back fill with decent new recruits due to the lack of planning. Interesting times though..................................amazing how quickly things can change.
  8. Sheds

    BMI problem?

    The whole of the forwards in the england rugby team would be obese under this measure. Not sure if there is a max bmi limit but when I joined your level of fat was measured by a calliper on the back of the upper arm - a much more accurate measurement of body fat percentage. I would request this in your case if you meet any problems.
  9. Sheds

    CARE scheme calculation

    Marvin, It will obviously depend on whether you get promoted at any stage or not (and also how quickly you get up to the top pay scale for a PC). If you retire at 60 then you will have 32 years service - go anytime before 55 and 60 and you obviously will build up less increments and also lose around 4% per year that you go early (so if you go at 55 you will lose 20% and only have earned 27/55ths). If you stay as a PC then, at 60, you will have 'earned' 32/55.3 ths. You will then need to times this by your career average pay - so if you get to the top of the scale (in today's money around 36k) but you take 8 years to get there earning between 21k and 36k then you will need to factor that in. For sake of simplicity this may bring your career average down to 34k. So it's 32/55.3 X 34,000 = £19,674. Its not really worth commuting under the new scheme (you only get £12 for every £1 you commute - under the 1987 scheme it was around £20) but that will be a decision for you at the time. Also, if you do climb the ranks then you will need to factor this into the calculations - e.g. a PC for 10 years averaging 28K, a Sgt for 10 years averaging 43k, an Insp for final 12 averaging 51k would mean a career average of around 42k (32/55.3 ths of this) = £24303. Bear in mind also you don't pay NI on retirement income and obviously won't be paying 14% pension contributions. If/when you get to 60 you will be pleasantly surprised how good the pension is - that is, unless/until the govt change the rules again and/or compulsory redundancy is brought in !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  10. Sheds

    Pension Challenge

    Cheese, You're correct, but it's not perfect (e.g. will not calculate commutations if not fully protected). It could be a lot better.
  11. Sheds

    Pension Challenge

    The other main difference with our shceme (compared to the vast majority) is that we had thousands of 'pension ages' based on 30 or 35 years for a full pension. Other schemes had a defined pension age. That is why so many have been 'shafted' more than other schemes due to the fact that the rules have changed to a far greater degree (meaning working much longer for less) than other schemes. To change from length of service to a defined pension age at the stroke of a pen did not happen to the vast majority of public sector schemes.
  12. Sheds

    Direct entry as Inspector.

    1970, Yes, but they're not paid an Inpectors wage from the off. They only get paid at that wage when they get promoted to that rank. I think the reasoning (which I can understand, although I think it is flawed) is to attract high flyers from other careers who are already being paid a fair chuck - otherwise, why would they jump ship to start on a Contable's wage (with no increments). With the Inspecting ranks likely to be tagetted in most forces (again) to save money this means even less opportunity for career progression for those Sgts trained and qualified for the next rank.
  13. Sheds

    Speak Foreign or Don't Apply

    We had a cracking job brought into custody a while ago. A Polish bloke had quite badly assaulted his girlfriend - two officers turn up at the scene and he start shouting to his wife, in Polish. Turns out he was shouting to her not to press any charges and say it was an accident, otherwise he would kill her. Unfortuntely for him one of the officers was of Polish descent and understood every word that was said. When his solicitor turned up and this was disclosed his face was a picture! Needless to say a full confession followed.
  14. Sheds

    Pension Challenge

    Chief, You are dead right - those who joined at a young age just before the new 2006 pension came in are easily the most affected. I really do feel for people by yourself. I have around 4 years tapered protection and was lucky that I joined at 25 years old so don't have to work any longer. Those with no protection at all are definitely worse off.
  15. Sheds

    The Winsor Report Thread

    A fair degree of protection but not the same - pregnancy is a category all of its own. If Picard was still posting he might know the ins and outs of injured/restricted officers (both as a result of incidents on or off duty) and all of the employment law around this, including those who are clssified as disabled. All in all, I think his position was that it is a minefield for the employer to have to wade through, so who knows what might happen?