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

[Yakari]

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.

By my understanding of the compensation scheme, in this instance, the officer qualifies for 15/16 of his pension. The ruling is 16 year reckonable service from 21 or 18 years qualifying service from 18. It is a level playing field as they both qualify for an immediate pension.

 

[really?_fascinating]

Unfortunately not the case. Offrs not at IPP get nothing. They will get 15/16ths of immediate pension at 65. OR gets 18/22 nds immediately. For the sake of a few months, an officer at 36 loses 12000 a year for 29 years. This is 348,000 pounds. Quite a lot by any standard. And a pretty poor deal.

 

[LeoRoverman]

So? What you write means absolutely nothing.

People need to stop whining and get on with life.

That sounds like either someone can't be bothered to make a fuss or is all right Jack and could'nt give a toss. Sad really.

 

[OldSnowy]

Sorry to point this out, but the idea is - and I know this may come as a shock - to save money for the Government.

Other countries, sadly for them stuck in the Eurozone, have already cut pensions (including Armed Forces ones) by large %ages, and Greece looks likely to do so again. If our government don't sort out our economy (and they are making a dog's breakfast of it at present) then they will end up doing the same.

So, savings must be made. The Armed Forces are too large for a small Country under no external threat whatsoever (wars-of-choice don't count here) and have to be reduced. It's hard-hearted to dismiss those within a gnat's tit of an immediate pension, but frankly that's going to save the most money.

And as for cutting pensions already awarded? Quite possible, likely even on present projections. Now that'll get people complaining!

 

[rabid spaniel]

Connect to the E petition thread in the rhq/ Armed forces redundancy scheme 2010. Although the OP has put it more eloquently than I.

 

[Andy71]

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.

All redundancy payments are tax free for the 1st 30k

 

[Yakari]

Unfortunately not the case. Offrs not at IPP get nothing. They will get 15/16ths of immediate pension at 65. OR gets 18/22 nds immediately. For the sake of a few months, an officer at 36 loses 12000 a year for 29 years. This is 348,000 pounds. Quite a lot by any standard. And a pretty poor deal.

From JSP 764 Part 5:

PENSIONS AND TERMINAL BENEFITS AVAILABLE ON REDUNDANCY
0316. Immediate Pension. On being made redundant, or directed to retire early under the DER scheme, a person will be entitled to either an Immediate Pension (monthly pension and pension lump sum) on discharge or a Preserved Pension (monthly pension and pension lump sum) at age 60/65, depending on whether he has completed sufficient qualifying service to reach his Immediate Pension point. For Officers, this is 16 years’ qualifying service from age 21 or 18 years’ qualifying service from age 18, and for Other Ranks, 18 years’ qualifying service from age 18.

0318. Calculating Immediate Pension (IP) (Officers). If an Officer is entitled to receive an IP under the rules at para 0316, but does not have 16 years’ or more reckonable service, his pension is to be calculated using a pro-rata rate of the 16-year Rate for Retired Pay on Compulsory Retirement in issue on the day following his last day of reckonable service.

The officer and OR are in exactly the same boat. There is no 'unfair' penalising for officers. The playing field was levelled under AFCS 10 .

 

[dingerr]

Unfortunately not the case. Offrs not at IPP get nothing. They will get 15/16ths of immediate pension at 65. OR gets 18/22 nds immediately. For the sake of a few months, an officer at 36 loses 12000 a year for 29 years. This is 348,000 pounds. Quite a lot by any standard. And a pretty poor deal.

I thought it was 55.

 

[TheLittleMan]

OS wrote
"Other countries, sadly for them stuck in the Eurozone, have already cut pensions (including Armed Forces ones) by large %ages, and Greece looks likely to do so again. If our government don't sort out our economy (and they are making a dog's breakfast of it at present) then they will end up doing the same.

So, savings must be made. The Armed Forces are too large for a small Country under no external threat whatsoever (wars-of-choice don't count here) and have to be reduced. It's hard-hearted to dismiss those within a gnat's tit of an immediate pension, but frankly that's going to save the most money".


I'm afraid old snowy that cutting pensions close to IPP is not the most cost effective (as stated in my last post) as the maths have been done on this. It is the easy option for the MoD as they have been given a pot of money to do so (unconnected from the pension pot or wages pot). Where did the Govt get that from? It can't just be magiced up from nowhere so is an additional burden on the overall defecit. Allowing individuals to run out AT IPP (given the choice at a manning control lever like redundancy) and not going to EDD, thus recieveing pension, is much more cost effective. Wages, severance grants, terminal grants and other benefits are saved. The MoD didn't do this as it was all too difficult. Easy option is not sensible option and it will happen again in T3 & 4; unless you find a voice...

However, your logic is sound in downsizing. Nobody in the cohort contests this and all are happy to go understanding the need. I guess we just want our money.

 

[Yorkie666]

I would like to respond to all who say the govt are doing it to save money, the Government don't seem to have had much issue reducing the tax paid by senior officers on their pensions as per 2012DIN01-006 which outlines that this will benefit officers of 1 star and below with annual pension pots of up to £65,000. Given there are approximately 150 serving Brigadiers in the Army alone this will benefit a huge number of very senior officer who are now unwilling to support lesser mortals causes. Note the DIN is a 2012 DIN hence during the current economic crisis.Also MPs have stated (well specifically the SofS for Defence has stated) that they didn't target people just short of earning a pension but looking at Inf and R Sigs Maj's they wanted LOS(MP) as at 1 Apr 12 of 12-14 Inf, and 13-15 Sigs, which adding 1 year for RMAS and 1 year for 1 Apr 12 - 11 Jun 13 adds up to specifically targeting people with pension earning service of 14-16 Inf and 15-17 Sigs. This sort of stinks... I could go on with REME Sgt 9 - 16 effectively 10-17 just short of 18, REME SSgt 14-16 etc.Below is the question asked by Sandra Osborne of the SofS for Defence and his response which indicates that Officers with 15 years service upon being made redundant will get a pension, DCDS(Pers) office is now back peddling quickly to get this "corrected"...Q57 Sandra Osborne: Could I ask you for your response to reports that some service personnel were deliberately made redundant just before they became eligible for immediate pension payouts?Mr Hammond: Yes. It is untrue. There are two things to be said. First, proximity to pension eligibility dates is neither a positive nor a negative criterion that is used in selection for redundancy. Secondly, some of the press reporting about people having been made redundant “60 days” before they were eligible for early departure payments and early pensions does not take into account the very significant abatements of service requirements that we have already made.Someone in a rank in which they would normally have to serve 22 years before receiving an immediate pension and early departure payment, has that requirement reduced to 18 years when they are made redundant, so anyone who was within four years of being eligible for an immediate pension would become eligible upon being made redundant. For officers, the requirement is 16 years of attributable service, that is service above the age of 21, and that is reduced by one year. So an officer made redundant would be eligible for an immediate pension, as long as he was within one year of that point. Even for those who do not become eligible for immediate pensions under those reduced criteria, the cash payments made on redundancy are significantly higher than the early departure payments that are available under the pension scheme. I do not recognise the picture that has been painted in the media.Link to online transcript - House of Commons - Uncorrected Evidence - c525-i

 

[LeoRoverman]

All redundancy payments are tax free for the 1st 30k

Sorry andy confusing you my colleagues are not military they were HmCe hmrc LEGACY

 

[really?_fascinating]

From JSP 764 Part 5:

PENSIONS AND TERMINAL BENEFITS AVAILABLE ON REDUNDANCY
0316. Immediate Pension. On being made redundant, or directed to retire early under the DER scheme, a person will be entitled to either an Immediate Pension (monthly pension and pension lump sum) on discharge or a Preserved Pension (monthly pension and pension lump sum) at age 60/65, depending on whether he has completed sufficient qualifying service to reach his Immediate Pension point. For Officers, this is 16 years’ qualifying service from age 21 or 18 years’ qualifying service from age 18, and for Other Ranks, 18 years’ qualifying service from age 18.

0318. Calculating Immediate Pension (IP) (Officers). If an Officer is entitled to receive an IP under the rules at para 0316, but does not have 16 years’ or more reckonable service, his pension is to be calculated using a pro-rata rate of the 16-year Rate for Retired Pay on Compulsory Retirement in issue on the day following his last day of reckonable service.

The officer and OR are in exactly the same boat. There is no 'unfair' penalising for officers. The playing field was levelled under AFCS 10 .

My reading of that is that the officer will receive x 16ths at age 65. No immediate pension, even if one day shy of IPP? If this is not the case, the MOD should be clarifying a position that is really scaring the engine room.

 

[TheLittleMan]

You are correct. the vaguery suits the purpose though. No admission, no bad press. This is really annoying as it requires the individual to do some serious digging to get a vague understanding of the rules and how they work. They are not in the spotlight but hidden away. I have yet to see DM(A) or the MoD give a straight answer on this issue. It tends to be half trurths dressed as good news soundbites. The unpalatable bits are left off

 

[Last Man CSjt]

Sorry to point this out, but the idea is - and I know this may come as a shock - to save money for the Government.

Other countries, sadly for them stuck in the Eurozone, have already cut pensions (including Armed Forces ones) by large %ages, and Greece looks likely to do so again. If our government don't sort out our economy (and they are making a dog's breakfast of it at present) then they will end up doing the same.

The comparison with Greece is unfortunate. I am currently working in a HQ with other (NATO) nations, including the country you mention. Yes, they are changing their pensions, but the changes are widely advertised (instead of the fait accompli we will endure when NEM/FAFPS is announced) and the result is that Greeks are leaving early to avoid suffering pension pain. Italy, hamstrung by its own rules, cannot compel people to be made redundan: the result is they are semi-retiring a huge cohort of warrant officers on 95% pay. The blokes go back to their little Tuscan village on 95% wedge and watch their lemons grow. So comparing nations is always going to be silly.

The key point is that there is the feeling that the Army hierarchy (OF5+) have been 'bought off' with their old pensions preserved. No sense rocking the boat, eh? The result is that the Army has a generation - the Afghan / Iraq veterans, like the OP who do not have union representation and do not appear to have many senior officers (the Balkans / NI generation) standing up to be counted. The result is that the cohort that has been affected has had to rely on relatives to have their story told. It's nothing short of disgraceful. I mean, I think it is tragic that Richard Payne - a bloke you would have next to you in a foxhole - has had to resort to his parents writing to the Torygraph.

Back on thread, I agree with those who say this will achieve little, but I commend the OP (another old mucker) for doing something rather than rolling over and having his tummy tickled.

LMC

 

[Yorkie666]

I find it interesting that the MOD have refused to provide any information on how many people this affects even following a Freedom of Information Request. This seems strange that the information is not available given every person made redundant received a pension statement indicating their situation. The other statement politicians and the MOD have made is that there was no consideration of how close people were to a pension point. When you look through the Army DIN outlining cap badges and length of service they are after the first two that pop up as targeting pre pension personnel are Infantry DE Majors with 12-14 years commissioned service and R Sigs DE Majors with 13-15 years commissioned service as at 1 Apr 12. Adding the year at Sandhurst and the year from Apr 12 - 11 Jun 13 (exit date) they specifically targeted people with 14-17 years service, in many cases just prior to an immediate pension, there are also a number of SNCO who are targeted pre 17 year point which would see them just miss the 18 year cut off. I can't see the same discrimination in the RAF and RN DINs though.

 

[Yakari]

He will get an IP by virtue of 18 years service. I agree that it seems a bit unclear, but the key info is that to qualify for an IP, the officer has to have EITHER 18/18 OR 16/21 which ever is the earlier. The preserved pension only kicks in if he does not meet either criteria.

I agree that there is a lot of disquiet - both upstairs and downstairs - about the affect of redundancy on pensions. But there is a large amount of accurate, official information that has been published both on DII and on the internet. Unit HR staff should also hold a copy of the official redundancy pension briefs that everyone should have been given.

 

[TheLittleMan]

I'm afraid Yakari there simply isn't. There is alot of waffle without plain facts. Criterea should be plain and simple and the rational behind why groups are selected should also be transparent. This information is NOT available and is heavily guarded. Why?

Oh and that gem of a pension payout fact sheet that each individual recieves is far from adeqaute. I know one individual who has had to redress his for a third time as it is incorrect. The last answer from the Redundancy Cell/SPAC on why this was so and what they would do about it was "just use the pension calculator". This is totally unacceptable. Is it too much to ask to be made redundant WITH the correct information at your fingertips or do you have to go and do your own legwork too to make it work?

 

[kennys-go-nad]

Nothing new here! It was that long ago the goverment was going to try and use manning control again as a method for saving on both redundancy and pension payments.
Frontline heroes ‘won’t be sacked’ | The Sun |News|Campaigns|Our Boys

Manning control - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Yakari]

I'm afraid Yakari there simply isn't. There is alot of waffle without plain facts. Criterea should be plain and simple and the rational behind why groups are selected should also be transparent. This information is NOT available and is heavily guarded. Why?

Oh and that gem of a pension payout fact sheet that each individual recieves is far from adeqaute. I know one individual who has had to redress his for a third time as it is incorrect. The last answer from the Redundancy Cell/SPAC on why this was so and what they would do about it was "just use the pension calculator". This is totally unacceptable. Is it too much to ask to be made redundant WITH the correct information at your fingertips or do you have to go and do your own legwork too to make it work?

To be clear - I was referring to information regarding general pension information and policy, and not about individual print outs for redundees or the reasons that they were selected or how they have been treated. On this (if that was your point) I agree. The amount of time between selection and notification alone should have meant that noone received a dud payout sheet. Although pension altering events occuring after selection cannot be factored into the individuals sheet. The entire selection process should be transparent from start to finish, and the selected lists should be published.

 

[TheLittleMan]

Agreed