Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

AFPS 75 / 05 / 15 Crowdfunding Court Case

Joe_Private

On ROPS
On ROPs
I am not sure that a Service Complaint about loss of pension entitlement will get far. The service complaint scheme has a number of excluded items and a schedule of matters that I seem to remember includes pension items that are subject to a review under the pension scheme.
Also, as I keep getting reminded every time I receive a patronising lecture on being nice to everyone by someone half my age, the protected characteristic of "Age" does not apply to the forces.
 
Also, as I keep getting reminded every time I receive a patronising lecture on being nice to everyone by someone half my age, the protected characteristic of "Age" does not apply to the forces.

It depends. Whilst age is an excluded protected characteristic (likewise disability)it has to be justified. ie, for recruitng its justified to havre an age cap and free from disabilities on grounds of operational effectiveness.

However, the MOD would struggle to justify (legally) why two offices of the same age, one on AFPS15 can serve beyond 55 but the one on AFPS75 is discharged at 55. One has a mandatory retirement determined by length of service, the other is solely by age (irrespective of length of service). If the second can prove a loss by not gaining a full 34 year pension then its probably unjustified discrimination?

I'm not a lawyer but @dingerr is and can probably fill in the obvious blanks I'm missing?
 
I’m not a lawyer DD, I could do some research, but have very little interest in this. As soon as some people start waving the discrimination card about my forehead tightens.
 
D

Deleted 60082

Guest
It depends. Whilst age is an excluded protected characteristic (likewise disability)it has to be justified. ie, for recruitng its justified to havre an age cap and free from disabilities on grounds of operational effectiveness.

However, the MOD would struggle to justify (legally) why two offices of the same age, one on AFPS15 can serve beyond 55 but the one on AFPS75 is discharged at 55. One has a mandatory retirement determined by length of service, the other is solely by age (irrespective of length of service). If the second can prove a loss by not gaining a full 34 year pension then its probably unjustified discrimination?

I'm not a lawyer but @dingerr is and can probably fill in the obvious blanks I'm missing?
Yes, but...

Officers on AFPS 75 are routinely being offered service to 60 and occasionally beyond; but this isn’t reflected in pension growth (AFPS 75 was never designed for the Saga generation), which I’m sure are grounds for complaint.
 

Joe_Private

On ROPS
On ROPs
Yes, but...

Officers on AFPS 75 are routinely being offered service to 60 and occasionally beyond; but this isn’t reflected in pension growth (AFPS 75 was never designed for the Saga generation), which I’m sure are grounds for complaint.
Which is what I was hinting at in post #17. Currently, for those on the 75 scheme, their pension stops accruing at the 37 or 34 year point, which is either on or after their 55th birthday. Service after this point both denies them the opportunity to receive the pension which by that point they have fully earned under the terms of the scheme and the ability to increase their pension by transferring to the 15 scheme.
 
Which is what I was hinting at in post #17. Currently, for those on the 75 scheme, their pension stops accruing at the 37 or 34 year point, which is either on or after their 55th birthday. Service after this point both denies them the opportunity to receive the pension which by that point they have fully earned under the terms of the scheme and the ability to increase their pension by transferring to the 15 scheme.
But in a similar way to those injured in service being awarded War Pension or AFCS GIP not being able to receive them whilst still serving you mean?

Don't see a problem, particularly as it appears from your post it's only, again, about officers.
 
D

Deleted 60082

Guest
But in a similar way to those injured in service being awarded War Pension or AFCS GIP not being able to receive them whilst still serving you mean?

Don't see a problem, particularly as it appears from your post it's only, again, about officers.
OK, how many NCOs now routinely serve beyond 55 years of age? For officers in the RAF most are automatically offered service to 60. The Naval Service is similar, I believe.
 

Joe_Private

On ROPS
On ROPs
But in a similar way to those injured in service being awarded War Pension or AFCS GIP not being able to receive them whilst still serving you mean?
Sounds similar, but to me looks subtly different.
Don't see a problem, particularly as it appears from your post it's only, again, about officers.
No. That's why I have twice mentioned 37 years.
OK, how many NCOs now routinely serve beyond 55 years of age?
I know several, and no, they're not FTRS.
 
D

Deleted 3147

Guest
The Naval Service is similar, I believe.
Not automatically, there was an initial couple of years high demand (at SO2,1) and that was met by volunteers, which I'm guessing was against projected gaps.

All based on service requirements and not all branches had the same demands. I suspect it'll stay in some form as I can't see recruiting and retention meeting the requirement.
 
Which is what I was hinting at in post #17. Currently, for those on the 75 scheme, their pension stops accruing at the 37 or 34 year point, which is either on or after their 55th birthday. Service after this point both denies them the opportunity to receive the pension which by that point they have fully earned under the terms of the scheme and the ability to increase their pension by transferring to the 15 scheme.
more fundamentally, not all on 75 will get a 34 yr pension as MRA is set at 55yrs
 
OK, how many NCOs now routinely serve beyond 55 years of age? For officers in the RAF most are automatically offered service to 60. The Naval Service is similar, I believe.

My point exactly.

Whether you read into that rank discrimination oe job specifics somehow requiring only an officer can do it is purely a personal view*.

*With a whole chip shop on my shoulder since before I joined the Army sort of gives away my POV ;)
 

Forces Pension Society

Sponsor
Sponsor
*Mods - please kindly do not relocate this to some obscure sub-forum about pensions - it's current and important, and probably relevant to tens of thousands of serving and ex-serving*.


I haven't posted on here for years, but I'm looking to rally a bit of ARRSE power, as a load of us have been fcuked over and no-one is really sure what we are going to do about it:

Situation
Some of you will have heard of McCloud & Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department (also known as the Judge's and Fire Fighters pension case). Basically, changes that HMG made to public sector pensions in 2015 have been ruled unlawful on the grounds of age discrimination.

HMG last week said it would, of its own kind heart, 'extend' the validity of this ruling to cover the Armed Forces. Or more to the point, it is probably wanting to avoid another costly and embarrassing Court case.

What does this mean for me as serving or recent ex-forces?
It means that if you were on AFPS 75 or AFPS 05 and got forcibly transferred to AFPS 15, you were almost certainly unlawfully discriminated against on the grounds of age and will be entitled to a remedy at law. Probably back-dating of your pension to the original scheme. But I bet you the MoD will try and worm its way out of this. Depending on your rank, this could be worth tens of thousands of pounds, or maybe even more.

So what?
Interestingly, and unless I am super-sh1t at using the 'search' function, no-one really seems to be talking about this on ARRSE. Which is strange, because it potentially affects tens of thousands of people who are still serving or have recently retired. And, from what I hear, everyone seems to be talking about it in messes up and down the country.

Ok, so what's the plan?
I am aware of someone who has put a Service Complaint in asking for their AFPS15 pension to be 'restored' to the AFPS 05 provisions that they joined on, thus 'reversing' the unlawful discrimination and putting them in the position they would have been in 'but for' the unlawful transition to AFPS 15.

The average time to resolve a Service Complaint is 26 weeks. So in all probability we won't know the outcome until next year. Given that it's on such an important point, it may take even longer than that to resolve. And given that the MoD has a history of 'picking and choosing' the parts of law it wants to follow, there is no guarantee our Complainant will be offered any meaningful redress.

Go on...
I am one of those caught up in this. I want to issue a class-action in either the Employment Tribunal or High Court, on behalf of those affected. Which probably includes YOU. The idea is to force the MoD's hand and prevent them from implementing a crap compromise solution before we are time-barred (there is a 6 year time limit in Court cases - and it may take 6/12 months to get this to the point where we are ready to issue proceedings).

The plan is to get a 'Judgment', i.e. a legally binding decision of the Court or Tribunal, that says we were unlawfully discriminated against. I am going to ask for the remedy to be restoration of everyone's pension to the scheme that they joined on, i.e. AFPS 75 or AFPS 05. This could, potentially, be worth tens of thousands of pounds to some people, perhaps more, over their retirement. Another problem with AFPS15 is that you have to wait until 67 to get most of your benefits.

So what do you want?
A vague promise by the MoD to sort this out is not enough. It's likely that some bean-counter is going to try and shaft us with a half-baked solution.

I intend to take 'professional' (i..e paid for) legal advice, hopefully from one of the firms who acted in the Judges and Fire Fighter's case. I will then issue Court or Tribunal proceedings if they think it's worthwhile (they probably will - what solicitor doesn't want to take on new work).

Instructing solicitors is not cheap; it will probably take £5,000 minimum to get this off the ground inclusive of Court costs.

So...

1. I am willing to 'stand' as lead Claimant. I am seeking a number of other people who are affected by this to join me as Claimants in the class action. This will involve us disclosing our real names for Court purposes. We cannot issue as ARRSE v MoD. I will setup an e mail address for people to get in contact - that way you don't have to disclose your user-name and full dodgy ARRSE posting history.

If we have a case, then it will cover everyone affected by this situation and force the MoD to properly make good our loss, hopefully by restoring us to our original pension schemes.

2. I may shortly be looking for financial contributions to any legal advice or possible Court case. Basically crowd-funding. If a few hundred (or more!) of us chip in then we won't need to give much each. Literally £20 a head from 250 people will meet the initial £5000 target. Given the vast amount of people involved, I am hoping we can raise even more than this as an 'insurance policy' if it drags on and we need to go to Court.

If I raise more money than we need I will split the rest equally between the 3 main Service charities. All money will be kept in a separate bank account (i.e. not my personal account) and I promise to publish full 'accounts' of every penny spent and received.

This is a wind up or scam, right?
Nope, i'm genuinely serious. I have been fcuked over myself by the unlawful pension changes.

I am going to speak to the solicitor this week and, subject to what they say, look to setup a 'Crowd Funding' page on Justgiving or something. I will report back when I know more.

So...who's up for it?


This was in the pensions area:

Public Sector Pension Ruling and the Armed Forces - Forces Pension Society

Government has accepted that there is a read across to other Public Sector schemes but it bound to take a while to sort out. Keep an eye on Regimental HQ/ Armed Forces Pension Scheme. We will keep it updated as news is available.
 

Latest Threads

Top