Joining the Police
Discussion
ED209 said:
Red 4 said:
ED209 said:
The federation will never challenge a scheme that they actively helped the government design. I am part of an independent legal challenge which is basically the same as the cases already heard. I anticipate any win and the changes that result will filter down to all those affected though. Well apart from any damages those challenging are awarded.
Genuine question.
You see cases all the time when people are awarded damages after being subject to age/sex/race discrimination. This case is no different.
Its fair to assume though that those who didn't lodge a claim with the employment tribunal initially mustn't feel that they are discriminated against and will therefore not get damages.
Bigends said:
It didnt help that the Federation told them not to bother as they were unlikely to be succesful. Luckily the Fire Brigade union didnt take that stance. Similar to the 1998 - 2006 pension underpayments. FBU won the case for Police and Fire whilst the Federation did sod all
The federation told people not to bother because they don't want people legally challenging a scheme that the federation was actively involved in the design of thereby shafting a lot of their members.The pensions legal action is about tapering/ age discrimination isn't it ?
I'm not completely au fait with the details but if the judgement in favour of the Judges and firefighters also applies to the police (which would seem likely) then what will it mean for you ED209 ?
Staying in the old scheme longer ? Reduced retirement age ? Bigger pension ?
I'm not completely au fait with the details but if the judgement in favour of the Judges and firefighters also applies to the police (which would seem likely) then what will it mean for you ED209 ?
Staying in the old scheme longer ? Reduced retirement age ? Bigger pension ?
Red 4 said:
The pensions legal action is about tapering/ age discrimination isn't it ?
I'm not completely au fait with the details but if the judgement in favour of the Judges and firefighters also applies to the police (which would seem likely) then what will it mean for you ED209 ?
Staying in the old scheme longer ? Reduced retirement age ? Bigger pension ?
Nobody knows how they will address the discrimination, that’s not for the court to decide. There are several options available to themI'm not completely au fait with the details but if the judgement in favour of the Judges and firefighters also applies to the police (which would seem likely) then what will it mean for you ED209 ?
Staying in the old scheme longer ? Reduced retirement age ? Bigger pension ?
As someone who joined at 19 and got chucked straight onto the new scheme with 18 years service the implications are likely to be huge for me. ( older people who joined on the same day as me were fully protected, see why it’s age discrimination?)
The best result would be for everyone to be put back into their old schemes until they retire. This would get my estimated £200k plus losses back assuming a relatively long life
One option I can see is by giving all those who were shafted the maximum tapering, this would take me until 2022 and almost 25 years in the 1987 pension. Still a huge loss from the full 30 year pension but would make retiring after the 30 years service I signed up for possible again.
I fully expect the government to appeal to the Supreme Court though. Personally I think this would be a good thing as I really can’t see them winning and the longer it takes to address the discrimination the better for me.
The fed have been scaremongering about levelling down to address the discrimination. In my opinion and bases on case law this won’t happen as it would be unlawful.
I know the pension scheme I joined was very generous and maybe not feasible in the modern world. When the reforms came I was prepared to take my share of the hit. Problem was as it stands I will work an extra 10 years and get a pension less than I should have been getting 10 years earlier that’s 10 years more paying in and 10 years less taking out. That makes my £200k estimate extremely conservative
Edited by ED209 on Saturday 29th December 19:00
Elroy Blue said:
I still think we’ll lose the tapering. That’ll be another hit for me. Under May, anything is possible
And this would be unlawful due to existing case law. Look on the bright side though. You have already had 3.5 years plus of tapering. I didn’t get a single second.
Even if they did remove tapering from the date the action is finalised then most will have dropped off it anyway.
The aim was divide and conquer and that’s certainly worked
The thing with the tapering and age discrimination issues are it doesn't just affect Judges', Firefighters' and Police pensions - it affects all public sector pension schemes.
The implications are potentially huge and HMG won't like that.
Whatever they do to resolve the issue isn't likely to be all sunshine and golden handshakes.
They put too much effort into shafting everyone in the first place.
It could be worse - you could be CNC (67) or MOD Police (65).
I appreciate what you say about the way the changes have affected you both financially and health wise.
I haven't heard of anyone receiving damages before though when they have been shortchanged by the Government, and there are lots of examples of that !
ETA - The Pensions Ombudsman can and does award "damages" but it is usually a very modest sum.
The implications are potentially huge and HMG won't like that.
Whatever they do to resolve the issue isn't likely to be all sunshine and golden handshakes.
They put too much effort into shafting everyone in the first place.
It could be worse - you could be CNC (67) or MOD Police (65).
I appreciate what you say about the way the changes have affected you both financially and health wise.
I haven't heard of anyone receiving damages before though when they have been shortchanged by the Government, and there are lots of examples of that !
ETA - The Pensions Ombudsman can and does award "damages" but it is usually a very modest sum.
Edited by Red 4 on Sunday 30th December 00:33
Red 4 said:
The thing with the tapering and age discrimination issues are it doesn't just affect Judges', Firefighters' and Police pensions - it affects all public sector pension schemes.
The implications are potentially huge and HMG won't like that.
Whatever they do to resolve the issue isn't likely to be all sunshine and golden handshakes.
They put too much effort into shafting everyone in the first place.
It could be worse - you could be CNC (67) or MOD Police (65).
I appreciate what you say about the way the changes have affected you both financially and health wise.
I haven't heard of anyone receiving damages before though when they have been shortchanged by the Government, and there are lots of examples of that !
ETA - The Pensions Ombudsman can and does award "damages" but it is usually a very modest sum.
Difference is some public sector jobs were barely affected, some actually gained from the changes!The implications are potentially huge and HMG won't like that.
Whatever they do to resolve the issue isn't likely to be all sunshine and golden handshakes.
They put too much effort into shafting everyone in the first place.
It could be worse - you could be CNC (67) or MOD Police (65).
I appreciate what you say about the way the changes have affected you both financially and health wise.
I haven't heard of anyone receiving damages before though when they have been shortchanged by the Government, and there are lots of examples of that !
ETA - The Pensions Ombudsman can and does award "damages" but it is usually a very modest sum.
Edited by Red 4 on Sunday 30th December 00:33
When those changes came in I was one of the worst affected. I joined at 19, and just missed out on the age tapering that protected all those that joined at the same as me, simply because they were a few years older. Therefore I faced having to work at LEAST another 11 years before I could claim any sort of reasonable pension. Potentially if retirement ages rose again to 65, another 16 years. That would have been 46 years on the street.
We worked it out at the time, with the additional years of paying in, the additional years of not taking out, and the reduction in what was agreed to initially, iy worked out at around a loss of £350k. And yes, all the financial planning done at the start of life, including the willingness to take a job that would never offer me a pay rise, all shattered.
We worked it out at the time, with the additional years of paying in, the additional years of not taking out, and the reduction in what was agreed to initially, iy worked out at around a loss of £350k. And yes, all the financial planning done at the start of life, including the willingness to take a job that would never offer me a pay rise, all shattered.
ED209 said:
Difference is some public sector jobs were barely affected, some actually gained from the changes!
Fair enough, I'll take your word for that - you seem to know more about the issues than I do.From what I know though, most people have had the shaft.
Most public sector jobs saw an increase in retirement age from 60 to SPA (67/68).
Winners and losers
Not sure in accuracy of the article but the person behind the figures should know what they're talking about.
https://archive.sussex.ac.uk/news/bulletin/bulleti...
Not sure in accuracy of the article but the person behind the figures should know what they're talking about.
https://archive.sussex.ac.uk/news/bulletin/bulleti...
Edited by Terzo123 on Sunday 30th December 13:18
Dizeee said:
When those changes came in I was one of the worst affected. I joined at 19, and just missed out on the age tapering that protected all those that joined at the same as me, simply because they were a few years older. Therefore I faced having to work at LEAST another 11 years before I could claim any sort of reasonable pension. Potentially if retirement ages rose again to 65, another 16 years. That would have been 46 years on the street.
We worked it out at the time, with the additional years of paying in, the additional years of not taking out, and the reduction in what was agreed to initially, iy worked out at around a loss of £350k. And yes, all the financial planning done at the start of life, including the willingness to take a job that would never offer me a pay rise, all shattered.
Totally with you there Diz. Joined at 19, now 40 with 21 years served and 19.5 to do. We worked it out at the time, with the additional years of paying in, the additional years of not taking out, and the reduction in what was agreed to initially, iy worked out at around a loss of £350k. And yes, all the financial planning done at the start of life, including the willingness to take a job that would never offer me a pay rise, all shattered.
Bearing in mind at 40 I’m waiting for knee surgery to repair a historic job related injury, and my back is basically f
ked, the chances of me actually making 60 are somewhere between slim and fk all. Theresa May 1
Me 0
Red 4 said:
Anyone think 60 is a fair age for retirement from the police ?
Most cops I know in their 50s (who have spent their careers in an operational role) are knackered.
I can say that about any role. I deal daily with men in 50's digging holes for utilities for example. Trust me they have done much more graft than a policeman (that's not having a go at policemen).Most cops I know in their 50s (who have spent their careers in an operational role) are knackered.
Ilovejapcrap said:
Red 4 said:
Anyone think 60 is a fair age for retirement from the police ?
Most cops I know in their 50s (who have spent their careers in an operational role) are knackered.
I can say that about any role. I deal daily with men in 50's digging holes for utilities for example. Trust me they have done much more graft than a policeman (that's not having a go at policemen).Most cops I know in their 50s (who have spent their careers in an operational role) are knackered.
I'd also add society doesn't need to worry as much if someone can't dig a hole as fast as they once used to. Not being able to apprehend criminals due to injury (whether being off the front line / or just unable to do what they used to) can have far more serious consequences.
Red 4 said:
Anyone think 60 is a fair age for retirement from the police ?
Most cops I know in their 50s (who have spent their careers in an operational role) are knackered.
Working to 60 is mad for the vast majority of Officers. It was 15 years ago when there were a fair few backroom roles that an older Officer could go into for his or her last few years service. Nowadays and more so in the future, people will join in their early 20s and can expect the best part of 40 years with their nose pressed firmly against the grindstone. Obviously many will simply leave once they realise those recruiting promises of decent promotion prospects or great lateral movement simply don't exist for the majority.Most cops I know in their 50s (who have spent their careers in an operational role) are knackered.
wiliferus said:
Totally with you there Diz. Joined at 19, now 40 with 21 years served and 19.5 to do.
Bearing in mind at 40 I’m waiting for knee surgery to repair a historic job related injury, and my back is basically fked, the chances of me actually making 60 are somewhere between slim and fk all.
Theresa May 1
Me 0
Very similar circs to me apart from I must have joined a year before you. So I was one year closer to my initial retirement date when I had the rug pulled with 18 years service Bearing in mind at 40 I’m waiting for knee surgery to repair a historic job related injury, and my back is basically f
ked, the chances of me actually making 60 are somewhere between slim and fk all. Theresa May 1
Me 0
ED209 said:
Very similar circs to me apart from I must have joined a year before you. So I was one year closer to my initial retirement date when I had the rug pulled with 18 years service
I was just shy of 24 when I joined so they increased mine by 6 years. I intend to go at 55 though, and find another job for 5 years. I'll take my lesser pension and top it up with an extra income. The argument I have is that I joined the police as a career. 13 years down the line I was pretty much tied to the job, and with no trade to fall back upon. It's not like a career where you go to a competitor for better conditions, you just have to accept what s
t they throw at you. If I knew what I know now, when I was younger .........Chicken Chaser said:
ED209 said:
Very similar circs to me apart from I must have joined a year before you. So I was one year closer to my initial retirement date when I had the rug pulled with 18 years service
I was just shy of 24 when I joined so they increased mine by 6 years. I intend to go at 55 though, and find another job for 5 years. I'll take my lesser pension and top it up with an extra income. The argument I have is that I joined the police as a career. 13 years down the line I was pretty much tied to the job, and with no trade to fall back upon. It's not like a career where you go to a competitor for better conditions, you just have to accept what s
t they throw at you. If I knew what I know now, when I was younger .........Retire when you can - take what you can - saves "them" a fortune (not least on the lump sum).
Up until about 10 years ago it was pretty much unheard of, for people to drop out of the pension scheme.
Today, a large chucnk of the younger ones joining now opt out, and a fair few with a good bit of service have taken a break from the new scheme.
Their contributions were meant to be paying for the current crop of retirees.
The government has really made an arse of it.
Today, a large chucnk of the younger ones joining now opt out, and a fair few with a good bit of service have taken a break from the new scheme.
Their contributions were meant to be paying for the current crop of retirees.
The government has really made an arse of it.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff