Question about police pensions
Discussion
Just curious, but we sometimes hear about police officers who have been sacked have lost their pension. How does that work, as at least a proportion of it is a salary deduction rather than an employers contribution?
To reassure you, I’m not a police officer and I’m not in the crap!
To reassure you, I’m not a police officer and I’m not in the crap!
Edited by ChevronB19 on Saturday 24th February 21:43
No idea how it works so not sure why I am typing apart from wanting to feel like Yipper for a few seconds.
If they have contributed, then I guess it's their money and can't be taken away.
But there may be a non-capitalised element that is contributed to by the Force after retirement which may be contractually withdrawn ?
If they have contributed, then I guess it's their money and can't be taken away.
But there may be a non-capitalised element that is contributed to by the Force after retirement which may be contractually withdrawn ?
I’m a copper and I have no idea how it works! I seem to recall that to withhold pension need the Home Secs authority... although that might be b
ks.
All I do know is in my 20 years, and having seen a fair few officers sacked, some for what I would regard serious offences, not one has lost their pension.
ks. All I do know is in my 20 years, and having seen a fair few officers sacked, some for what I would regard serious offences, not one has lost their pension.
Loss of job for a Police Officer -
Not a simple answer, as many Officers will have accrued pensions from previous (military etc) service and then there have been 3 (gradually worsening) Police Pension Schemes, which Officers will have contributed to (I believe 14% of salary is the current rate for some?)
Depending on their level of service, many will not be able to access pensions until they are 67, regardless of how and when they leave if it is before full rights have been achieved (30yrs+ ish, again dependent on different factors).
Even when sacked, loss of pension is not common, though it is frozen, and as the final years of service count at double rate, that is all the more impactive. (Ironically, those final years are golden handcuffs - a huge disincentive for an Officer to leave the job, regardless of other factors, as the impact on their pension is all the greater - not good if you are stuck in a role that you don't want to be - Ask the 59yr old doing 24/7 shifts, dealing with drunks who want to fight etc...)
When convicted and sacked it is not automatic, and my guess is it happens in <20% of cases - ie only those where there is a custodial sentence and significant impact on victim / reputation of Policing (ie even more than simply going to prison, so perhaps where the Officer used their position to commit the crime).
Following conviction and sentence, an application has to be made (by the force?) to the HO for consideration, and then there is another process whereby it is considered.
Not a simple answer, as many Officers will have accrued pensions from previous (military etc) service and then there have been 3 (gradually worsening) Police Pension Schemes, which Officers will have contributed to (I believe 14% of salary is the current rate for some?)
Depending on their level of service, many will not be able to access pensions until they are 67, regardless of how and when they leave if it is before full rights have been achieved (30yrs+ ish, again dependent on different factors).
Even when sacked, loss of pension is not common, though it is frozen, and as the final years of service count at double rate, that is all the more impactive. (Ironically, those final years are golden handcuffs - a huge disincentive for an Officer to leave the job, regardless of other factors, as the impact on their pension is all the greater - not good if you are stuck in a role that you don't want to be - Ask the 59yr old doing 24/7 shifts, dealing with drunks who want to fight etc...)
When convicted and sacked it is not automatic, and my guess is it happens in <20% of cases - ie only those where there is a custodial sentence and significant impact on victim / reputation of Policing (ie even more than simply going to prison, so perhaps where the Officer used their position to commit the crime).
Following conviction and sentence, an application has to be made (by the force?) to the HO for consideration, and then there is another process whereby it is considered.
ChevronB19 said:
Just curious, but we sometimes hear about police officers who have been sacked have lost their pension. How does that work, as at least a proportion of it is a salary deduction rather than an employers contribution?
To reassure you, I’m not a police officer and I’m not in the crap!
Does happen but, in my experience (of other officers) only in serious crimes which generate a dose of imprisonment. To reassure you, I’m not a police officer and I’m not in the crap!
Edited by ChevronB19 on Saturday 24th February 21:43
Being sacked hits the old style pension and by some way so there was a factor of losing the pension. In the day, churn was a major factor in the job and the pension was used to enforce retention. If you jacked the job in early the savings to the government were tremendous. The officer would receive his contributions, without interest, in a lump sum. There was no employer's contribution to the pension so nothing to give back.
It worked to a limited extent in the old days of dreadfully poor pay, up until, say, 1980 or so. Officers left in early service in droves when they had less than 10 years service and it was a significant problem. They officers lost little. Vacancies were the norm.
With 12 or more years in, the wages went up a bit and the loss of interest and 'employer's contribution' started to become significant. So there were a few officers who remained in post just for the pension. This included the halt and the lame, those who had suffered significant injuries. There was a CID clerk who had had most of his lower leg removed in the Old Bailey bombing and he was retained. That said, he was very effective. Well worth his money.
The pension was a means of lowering churn. It was also used as a way of lowering wages. The enquiry into police pay came out with a figure but it was reduced (by 7.5% if memory serves) to take into account the benefits of the pension. This, of course, should be used when calculating the amount paid by an officer for his or her pension. On top of that, the reduction included overtime pay (which serving officers might have heard off) despite it being non-pensionable.
I was head-hunted by a big international company for their security side and their calculation of just how much I paid in pension was really quite a shock. I'd believed the official figures - despite my length of service - so matters, like the reduction in pay, soon added up. There were a number of other factors. Two other officers were interviewed at the same time as me - I say interviewed but it was really just them telling us of the benefits - and they took it. I met one, who'd retired a few years after me, and he reckoned he was better off that he would have been in the job. But he would have said that I suppose so no one knows. He had share options offered which he took.
So a loss of pension entitlement, sometimes a quite considerable amount, is a 'built in factor' to a serious offence. In some ways I think it is wrong as it is 'double jeopardy' as it is not taken into account when the penalty for the offence is considered. On the other hand, those who've earned it deserved it and more I think.
It's changed a bit now and I believe that there are some legal constraints to removing pension entitlements.
iDrive said:
Loss of job for a Police Officer -
Not a simple answer, as many Officers will have accrued pensions from previous (military etc) service and then there have been 3 (gradually worsening) Police Pension Schemes, which Officers will have contributed to (I believe 14% of salary is the current rate for some?)
Depending on their level of service, many will not be able to access pensions until they are 67, regardless of how and when they leave if it is before full rights have been achieved (30yrs+ ish, again dependent on different factors).
Even when sacked, loss of pension is not common, though it is frozen, and as the final years of service count at double rate, that is all the more impactive. (Ironically, those final years are golden handcuffs - a huge disincentive for an Officer to leave the job, regardless of other factors, as the impact on their pension is all the greater - not good if you are stuck in a role that you don't want to be - Ask the 59yr old doing 24/7 shifts, dealing with drunks who want to fight etc...)
When convicted and sacked it is not automatic, and my guess is it happens in <20% of cases - ie only those where there is a custodial sentence and significant impact on victim / reputation of Policing (ie even more than simply going to prison, so perhaps where the Officer used their position to commit the crime).
Following conviction and sentence, an application has to be made (by the force?) to the HO for consideration, and then there is another process whereby it is considered.
Final years only count as double for those in the 1987 pension scheme. Not for those in the 2006 and 2015 schemes.Not a simple answer, as many Officers will have accrued pensions from previous (military etc) service and then there have been 3 (gradually worsening) Police Pension Schemes, which Officers will have contributed to (I believe 14% of salary is the current rate for some?)
Depending on their level of service, many will not be able to access pensions until they are 67, regardless of how and when they leave if it is before full rights have been achieved (30yrs+ ish, again dependent on different factors).
Even when sacked, loss of pension is not common, though it is frozen, and as the final years of service count at double rate, that is all the more impactive. (Ironically, those final years are golden handcuffs - a huge disincentive for an Officer to leave the job, regardless of other factors, as the impact on their pension is all the greater - not good if you are stuck in a role that you don't want to be - Ask the 59yr old doing 24/7 shifts, dealing with drunks who want to fight etc...)
When convicted and sacked it is not automatic, and my guess is it happens in <20% of cases - ie only those where there is a custodial sentence and significant impact on victim / reputation of Policing (ie even more than simply going to prison, so perhaps where the Officer used their position to commit the crime).
Following conviction and sentence, an application has to be made (by the force?) to the HO for consideration, and then there is another process whereby it is considered.
Nobody aged 59 will still be working in the 1987 scheme. Those who will end up working to 60 will be in the 2006/2015 schemes and the golden handcuff element doesn't exist in those schemes.
Pensions can only be forfeited (in full or in part) in very strict circumstances;
The officer must commit an act of treason, an offence under the Official Secrets Act or an offence which is deemed to be grossly injurous to the reputation of the police service - this has to be certified by the Secretary of State.
It's in the Pension Regs somewhere.
Normally, accrued benefits are frozen and paid at complulsary/ State retirement age (so the pension isn't lost, as such)
The officer must commit an act of treason, an offence under the Official Secrets Act or an offence which is deemed to be grossly injurous to the reputation of the police service - this has to be certified by the Secretary of State.
It's in the Pension Regs somewhere.
Normally, accrued benefits are frozen and paid at complulsary/ State retirement age (so the pension isn't lost, as such)
ED209 said:
Those who will end up working to 60 will be in the 2006/2015 schemes and the golden handcuff element doesn't exist in those schemes.
Not strictly true. As the 1987 scheme still exists, but has been frozen. I have 17 years locked into that scheme which is still final salary linked. But the time I retire after 40 years service I’ll have 17 years of the ‘87 scheme and 23 on the 2015 scheme.
I currently have 20 years in and as each year passes I feel more compelled to stay.
ChevronB19 said:
Just curious, but we sometimes hear about police officers who have been sacked have lost their pension. How does that work, as at least a proportion of it is a salary deduction rather than an employers contribution?
To reassure you, I’m not a police officer and I’m not in the crap!
You only really hear this in fictional TV US cop shows. It doesn’t happen in the U.K. To reassure you, I’m not a police officer and I’m not in the crap!
Edited by ChevronB19 on Saturday 24th February 21:43
wiliferus said:
Not strictly true. As the 1987 scheme still exists, but has been frozen. I have 17 years locked into that scheme which is still final salary linked.
But the time I retire after 40 years service I’ll have 17 years of the ‘87 scheme and 23 on the 2015 scheme.
I currently have 20 years in and as each year passes I feel more compelled to stay.
It's working then.But the time I retire after 40 years service I’ll have 17 years of the ‘87 scheme and 23 on the 2015 scheme.
I currently have 20 years in and as each year passes I feel more compelled to stay.
I was at a dinner and a Met was there. He was struggling with a back injury and had been found unfit to work. He could not stand for any length of time, nor could he sit. He'd appealed, saying that people worse than he were working in some role or other. He was short in service with regards retirement and his wife was complaining about the loss of pension rights, a bit of 'all he needed was another three years' and she felt that the Job knew this as well. Under Blunkett's changes to pension rights, he could not get pensioned off as it was, the doctor's suggested, possible that he'd get well enough to work at some time in his remaining years.
They sat him next to me as at that time I was suffering from a work related injury and whilst I was unfit to work I could not retire on ill-health because it was possible I could get well enough to work at some time in the future - 15 years and counting. We didn't speak to one-another about the Job throughout the meal.
Gavia said:
You only really hear this in fictional TV US cop shows. It doesn’t happen in the U.K.
It does happen, though as it is a process that takes place after Sentencing (and usually when the Officer is in Prison), you don't hear about it.ED209 said:
Final years only count as double for those in the 1987 pension scheme. Not for those in the 2006 and 2015 schemes.
Nobody aged 59 will still be working in the 1987 scheme. Those who will end up working to 60 will be in the 2006/2015 schemes and the golden handcuff element doesn't exist in those schemes.
As said, its complex - There will be Officers working, aged 59 who have an element of the earlier scheme, but who are under the terms of the later scheme courtesy of not being within the taper period or electing to move for example.Nobody aged 59 will still be working in the 1987 scheme. Those who will end up working to 60 will be in the 2006/2015 schemes and the golden handcuff element doesn't exist in those schemes.
Derek - It's a criteria of ill health retirement and injury award benefits that the disablement must be permanent.
But there's also a little known reg that says should the disablement cease after retirement (up to the point when an officer would have had 25 years service) then the pension will be cancelled !
But there's also a little known reg that says should the disablement cease after retirement (up to the point when an officer would have had 25 years service) then the pension will be cancelled !
Edited by Red 4 on Sunday 25th February 12:24
iDrive said:
Gavia said:
You only really hear this in fictional TV US cop shows. It doesn’t happen in the U.K.
It does happen, though as it is a process that takes place after Sentencing (and usually when the Officer is in Prison), you don't hear about it.
Joking aside, it really is very rare though. It’s not something that happens as a matter of routine if someone resigns in disgrace, or dismissed for most reasons. The reason, I made the earlier comment, is that it’s something that is always mentioned on US TV cop shows when one of them decides to do something against the rules and their straightlaced partner who’s nearing retirement starts flapping about his pension.
Red 4 said:
Derek - It's a criteria of ill health retirement and injury award benefits that the disablement must be permanent.
But there's also a little known reg that says should the disablement cease after retirement (up to the point when an officer would have had 25 years service) then the pension will be cancelled !
Happened to an officer from my force. She went out on an ill health pension with back problems - straight back into nursing, humping patients about But there's also a little known reg that says should the disablement cease after retirement (up to the point when an officer would have had 25 years service) then the pension will be cancelled !
Edited by Red 4 on Sunday 25th February 12:24
R4 gives the answer as to when it can be taken away. Extremely rare and I've never known it occur.
The stupid reporting, "The officer resigned and kept their pension".
Well, why wouldn't they? They paid into it for X years and kept up their end.
If you made loss of pension a trivial matter then I'd suggest you'd end up with a deeply sown risk-averse culture from day one. Not a good thing for people who are in the emergency services.
The stupid reporting, "The officer resigned and kept their pension".
Well, why wouldn't they? They paid into it for X years and kept up their end.
If you made loss of pension a trivial matter then I'd suggest you'd end up with a deeply sown risk-averse culture from day one. Not a good thing for people who are in the emergency services.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff