I didn't actually expect a prediction, to be honest, I just wanted to put the question out there, as it is an example of how some are potentially financially worse off due to an arbitrary age limit, but affects very few and could potentially be entirely overlooked in any solution, as the focus is on those who are on the other side of the age limit.We will not speculate as we would not like to mislead you. I am afraid it is a waiting game.
Just adjust your age to make sure you were 45 or older on 1 April 2012.Very happy that the MOD have been forced to revisit this mess they have created.
It was much simpler to have one pension, especially as a young Airman/woman/Crayon Eater - they didn't have to worry or understand, they just knew they were going to get a good pension.
Now with 3 different pensions and the possibility of making further choices, are the MOD going to provide pension briefings to ensure all Service persons understand? Or will we be getting the stock answer of "We don't discuss or offer advice on pensions, see an IFA"?
Also, anybody got a link to a '75 only calculator? This could be very interesting
Age, despite being one of the mandated protected characteristics, is specifically excluded from the legislation with which the MoD has to comply. And it's not just in respect of operational effectiveness, as a reasonable person might imagine, it's a complete and utter exclusion, in all respects, for everything.Anyone any idea who has been disciplined as a result of this case?
Given the mandatory Personal Objective we are forced to enter on JPA every year, I assume someone has been hauled over the coals for this
So this is extended to Military Pensions now? It reads that way.Younger members of public sector pension schemes who have been discriminated against by the government’s 2015 pension reforms will be treated as participants of the original pension funds.
The update stated: “The declarations mean that the claimants are entitled to be treated as members of the appropriate pre-2015 schemes.
“The government intends to extend the same treatment to all members of the public service pension schemes (whether claimants or not) who are in the same legal and factual position of the claimants.”
but anything can be challenged if unreasonable and disproportionateAge, despite being one of the mandated protected characteristics, is specifically excluded from the legislation with which the MoD has to comply. And it's not just in respect of operational effectiveness, as a reasonable person might imagine, it's a complete and utter exclusion, in all respects, for everything.
Not everyone.While everyone in HMF reverting to AFPS 75 would be good news for the individual, how do you think Defence is going to pay for it? An army of 70k anyone?
|Thread starter||Similar threads||Forum||Replies||Date|
|United Kingdom Security Vetting (UKSV): our latest updates||MoD News||5|
|Defence Secretary Oral Statement: Update on security situation in the Middle East||MoD News||0|
|Pension Tax Update||Armed Forces Pension Scheme||1|