The unpensionables - fight for your future, tranche 3 & 4 are coming

[Ancient_Hush_Puppy]

Signed

 

[shiny_arrse]

I must admit that my memory is hazy but I seem to remember back in the 80' a 22 year contract but there again I forget to do my flies up as well so who knows

exmunkey,

Check your flies!
No one signed a Contract. Everyone signed an agreement that they would serve and receive benefits (in the form of Pay, Pension, leave and so on) for that service, with the level of those benefits being determined by the MOD.

Years ago (late 80's), individuals could sign for extended terms of service (6 or 9 years) which resulted in an increase in daily rate of pay (I think I got an extra 65 pence a day for signing up for 9 years). I could still sign off but was likely to have to repay any extra pay received, and I'm fairly certain I waived my right to PVR.

It's a kick in the balls for those that are losing out, but there is nothing that they can do about it.

Shiny

 

[LeoRoverman]

When you posted this in CA you were informed that those within 4 years of their IPP on discharge through redundancy will receive an immediate pension, as well as a nice fat redundancy pay off.

Secondly, the Army never asked or expected anyone to serve to 22 years, there is no contract for 22 years if there was soldiers would be beholden for 22 years.







So let's get the facts right.

As far as redundancy packages go, you can't get much better than this.

The OP has deceived people on this thread.

Dingrr with respect my collegues had some experience with this as I have posted before. I signed up when people were doing their 22 years, my dad did 30 for pension. I expect it was an enhanced one but there you are.

In terms of the redundancy lump sum it will be taxable in the financial year that you recieve it and the catch is this. If you start in say April, at the start of the financial year it is more beneficial than if you have recieved your full salary the following march as you will be taxed at the Higher rate by HMRC who make no distinction between the lump sum and earnings. This means that at the end of the financial year you can be left with less of your lump for the following year. Don't forget that if you have had a lump sum you don't qualify for JSA as you are deemed to have savings and that has to do you until you find a job. Ok for those living with mum and dad , but not good for a family. Any pressure on the Government in this respect can only be Good.

 

[dingerr]

So? What you write means absolutely nothing.

People need to stop whining and get on with life.

 

[rgjbloke]

When I signed up in 1971, the options were 3 and 6 which was three years with colours and six on the reserves, 6 and 3 which was six years with the colours and three with the reserves or 9 years with no committment to the regular reserve.

Around about 1973/74ish it changed. You signed for 22 years with an option to serve 3, 6 or mine years. The rate of pay was higher for each increased option that you signed for.

That's obviously been water under the bridge for quite some time now.

 

[really?_fascinating]

Really? You fail to see the inequity in a 36 year old WOII with eighteen years reckon able service let's say getting a pension four years short of when he qualifies while a 36 year old Major one month short of his gets nothing?

Will it affect many? I know three personally and know of many more. All of them gutted and feel like they have been really badly let down.

Dingerr, so what? Some people work 50 years without any risk or personal inconvenience at all.

As for pension at 16 years good. Maybe, but good for the Army too as it encourages departure at 37.

Frog, why make an 18 year exception for or and then fail to make any exception for officers? Seems odd. Four years early for OR, nothing for offrs seems v small minded.

 

[Andy71]

In terms of the redundancy lump sum it will be taxable in the financial year that you recieve it and the catch is this. If you start in say April, at the start of the financial year it is more beneficial than if you have recieved your full salary the following march as you will be taxed at the Higher rate by HMRC who make no distinction between the lump sum and earnings. This means that at the end of the financial year you can be left with less of your lump for the following year. Don't forget that if you have had a lump sum you don't qualify for JSA as you are deemed to have savings and that has to do you until you find a job. Ok for those living with mum and dad , but not good for a family. Any pressure on the Government in this respect can only be Good.

The 1st 30k of redundancy is taxfree. You will still be entitled to contributions based JSA, although don't spend that £65/week all at once

 

[dingerr]

Yes, I can see the inequality of an officer receiving an IP with 16 years service and OR with 22.

And of course, there's still inequality under redundancy when officers will see an IP at 16 years and ORs at 18.

Are you alright jack!

 

[LeoRoverman]

The 1st 30k of redundancy is taxfree. You will still be entitled to contributions based JSA, although don't spend that £65/week all at once

So you got a better deal than we did. Fair does in some respects I suppose. I dont think any of our lump sums got any dispensation.

 

[LeoRoverman]

When I retired I asked to claim JSA and was told that if you have savings you don't qualify, no mention of contributions based JSA

 

[ashford_old_school]

If you are in receipt of a Mil
Pension then you cannot claim JSA, full stop.

 

[tankboy1]

I would stick that money in the wife's account.

 

[exbleep]

I have signed. However, if (and I doubt it) anything comes of it and you can get an IPP after 17 years, will we then start petitions saying people who have done 16 years and 10 months miss out by 2 months so it isn't fair? Do we then keep going down? Already 4 years knocked off to get the IPP so I assume we are now arguing for it to be knocked down to 5 years.
Oh, and the original terms of service were 6/22 or 9/22. So you signed on for 22 but had options to leave after 6 or 9 with 6 or 3 years on reserve. Only reason I changed to 9 years commitment was to get the extra 2 quid and a few shillings a week. No 3 year options in 67.

 

[MARTOK]

I would stick that money in the wife's account.

If what you are thinking is that it wont be taken into account when claiming benefits think again.

All savings / earnings whether the claiments or their spouces / partners are taken into consideration when making any claim for benefits.

 

[davidflies]

Signed

 

[really?_fascinating]

Yes, I can see the inequality of an officer receiving an IP with 16 years service and OR with 22.

And of course, there's still inequality under redundancy when officers will see an IP at 16 years and ORs at 18.

Are you alright jack!

Dingerr, you (of course) conveniently miss the fact that OR pension start from 18, officers from 21. So a 36 year old WOII with eighteen years gets a pension four years short of when he should. A 36 year old Major with eighteen years service, but still one year short of 16 years 'reckon able' service gets nothing.

As it happens I am alright thanks, mine is already secure. So I am irritated on principle, not for reason of personal gain.

 

[LeoRoverman]

If you are in receipt of a Mil
Pension then you cannot claim JSA, full stop.

That fits

 

[TheLittleMan]

I see this thread has now generated some interest and discussion. Having just got in from work and done the chores, I have time to reply. To those that have signed, thank you all. Please continue to tell your family and friends. Every little helps. I do not think it is an over ambitious petition, it seeks to generate debate in Parliament (of which their is much split opinion in the MoD and Govt on the matter); it seeks nothing more than that outcome.

Dinger:
"When you posted this in CA you were informed that those within 4 years of their IPP on discharge through redundancy will receive an immediate pension, as well as a nice fat redundancy pay off.

Secondly, the Army never asked or expected anyone to serve to 22 years, there is no contract for 22 years if there was soldiers would be beholden for 22 years.
So let's get the facts right

The OP has deceived people on this thread"

Nope, no deceit, just checked the original thread and nobody has informed me of what you mention in the first para on your original reply. I clearly stated in my original post:

"Some of you will be aware that there is a small cohort of soldiers and officers who have been made redundant a short period prior to their Immediate Pension Point, thus not qualifying for their monthly pension"

Those who are voluntary redundant (post IPP in every case) recieve both payments, those prior to IPP do not; they are ts the subject of this thread and petition.

Second para, we all sign an agreement, as I did at IRC, the details of which shiny_Arrse hits the nail on the head with. Unfortunately, this all happened pre Sep 2009...when the MoD changed the terms and reference agreement of engagement stating it could make anyone redundant at any time; this is contrary to the original terms and conditions of contract. This was posted on the intranet via a DIN...Now if you have time to read all those as they appear, then you are a better man than I. My point being that legitimate expectation, the offer and acceptance of a job is broken. This is not a whine as you put it, it is a fact. To lose out on a pension beacuse you are a short a small amount of time is pretty unfair; it wouldn't run at an tribunal in industry so why wouldn't you fight for it? Thats what we are taught to do isnt it? Question everything and find a solution? Having re-read my original thread I see no emotion or moaning in it, only fact. You may find this comes to you in Tranche 3 & 4, I do hope not for your sake.

Your next point:

"Some people can work nearly 50 years and won't get a pension anywhere near as good as the Armed Forces.

I still fail to see why soldiers are badly done to in this redundancy"

Thats pretty easy to answer, those who work 50 years don't take the same risks or get as abused as we do. The pension is/was a fair shout because it is the one constant you can depend on for your troubles. I don't see any civilian firm doing what we do so cheaply. I am also irritated by the continual "well, yearly rolling contracts apply in Industry", yes they do, because they don't work under the same conditions, constraints or in the same environments that we do. Really_Fascinating was spot on in his reply.

And finally, this thread is not about Offr/OR inequality in pensions, it is about the running principle that many in here have already stated, why make people redundant when they are close to their IPP in the first place; Offr or OR. Thier is no parity between the services in their policy here as stated in the original thread; probably for a good reason. So tell us that and put it in the original DIN, we can all make balanced opinions on it right or wrong; or is their something to hide? Secondly, it makes no financial sense (as stated in the original thread), those close to running out from IPP should be allowed to do so, it is cheaper. By being transparent about selection criterea and reasons why a field has specific needs (both areas that have not and will not be released), people could have made a balanced judgement and volunteered to leave at IPP (which they would have). This meant all get their pension, the army saves a big wad on wages and not paying a redundancy lump sum and the numbers for Army 2020 are reached in each tranche at LESS pain. Therefore this would allow BETTER MANAGEMENT of a already badly handled issue... Rumour has it this was not the prefered managment model as the Govt simply provided a pot of cash for redundancy, making it the easy option.

 

[shiny_arrse]

I see this thread has now generated some interest and discussion. Having just got in from work and done the chores, I have time to reply. To those that have signed, thank you all. Please continue to tell your family and friends. Every little helps. I do not think it is an over ambitious petition, it seeks to generate debate in Parliament (of which their is much split opinion in the MoD and Govt on the matter); it seeks nothing more than that outcome.

Second para, we all sign an agreement, as I did at IRC, the details of which shiny_Arrse hits the nail on the head with. Unfortunately, this all happened pre Sep 2009...when the MoD changed the terms and reference agreement of engagement stating it could make anyone redundant at any time; this is contrary to the original terms and conditions of contract.

TLM,

I snipped a bit from your post...
I have no problem with your first statement, if you want to waste your time, crack on.

The point I would like to remind you of is the bit about signing an agreement, it is, and never was, a contract. We all signed to say we would serve and agreed to be compensated by the MOD under their terms (which they could change as and when they see fit). The MOD has always had the right to terminate service short of the 22 year point, it made sense not to when it needed to keep the numbers up.

As I said previously, it is a kick in the balls for those affected, but there is nothing they can do, other than try to embarrass the MOD (who will just ignore it anyway).

 

[TheLittleMan]

SA,

I don't agree with your first para. It's not a waste of time. If you don't challenge, nothing changes. That is the point of this thread. The cohort of affected people has the time to do so and is happy to. It also has the moral weight to do so for Tranche 3 & 4.

Secondly, Signed agreement, yes you are right. But the MoD can't have its cake and eat it every time. There are exploitable areas in all terms of service, depending on how they are fought over. You are right though, it will be an extremely difficult fight to prove otherwise but one worth fighting for.

Thirdly, kick in the Balls Yes...But also an opportunity for pastures new? Yes. No point sulking forever...

Only time will tell now.