Question about police pensions
Discussion
Bigends said:
Not at all - I dont / and didnt have a clue in relation to pension regs - I just accepted what I was given -( as it happens I and 8yrs worth of Cops and Fireman was underpaid on commutation by 25% of what we should have received - only recently resolved ) so i'm clearly not the only one that was clueless.
No. You're wrong again.The commutation issue was due to a retired fireman suing the government because they did not increase the commutation factors when they should have.
See Milne v Government Actuary Dept.
La Liga said:
IIRC the last 3 years were relevant if you were given a temporary rank i.e. you did you last 3 years as a T/Supt you ended up with something close to a Super's pension rather than a Chief Inspector's, which wasn't really fair.
So what ?Pay is different to accrual.
I think (from memory) the 87 pension is based on the best of your last 2 (possibly 3) years pensionable pay. I'd have to double check that.
Edited by Red 4 on Sunday 25th February 23:53
Red 4 said:
Not for everyone.
If you had less than 10 years to go at April 2012/ were over a certain age (can't remember the exact details) then you were protected.
It's because the law says you can't change someone's pension within 10 years to retirement because it kinda fecks up their ability to plan for retirement.
Of course, thanks. Entirely reasonable.If you had less than 10 years to go at April 2012/ were over a certain age (can't remember the exact details) then you were protected.
It's because the law says you can't change someone's pension within 10 years to retirement because it kinda fecks up their ability to plan for retirement.
Red 4 said:
No. You're wrong again.
The commutation issue was due to a retired fireman suing the government because they did not increase the commutation factors when they should have.
See Milne v Government Actuary Dept.
Yes, I know - I was one of the recipients - theyd underpaid because they hadnt reviewed the multiplier between 1998 and 2006. They also paid interest on monies owed - so where was I wrong?? We knew something was up as those retiring a year or so later were receiving far larger commutation figures and we were never offered an explanation. As per usual the Federation were useless and it was left to the Fire brigade union to fight the caseThe commutation issue was due to a retired fireman suing the government because they did not increase the commutation factors when they should have.
See Milne v Government Actuary Dept.
sidicks said:
Red 4 said:
No. You're wrong again.
The commutation issue was due to a retired fireman suing the government because they did not increase the commutation factors when they should have.
See Milne v Government Actuary Dept.
Increase the commutation factors for what reason?The commutation issue was due to a retired fireman suing the government because they did not increase the commutation factors when they should have.
See Milne v Government Actuary Dept.
Commutation factors are increased in line with research on life expectancy, etc
Edited by Red 4 on Sunday 25th February 23:57
La Liga said:
IIRC the last 3 years were relevant if you were given a temporary rank i.e. you did you last 3 years as a T/Supt you ended up with something close to a Super's pension rather than a Chief Inspector's, which wasn't really fair.
The relevance was that the 'final salary' element of your pension was based on the best year within the last 3 years.Red 4 said:
Because (surprise, surprise) HMG wanted to save a few bob and didn't increase the commutation factors when they should have.
By ‘when they should have’, you mean due to changing economic and demographic conditions?And yet the same people seem to be oblivious to those changing conditions when the scheme rules are revised downwards for the same reasons!
Edited by sidicks on Monday 26th February 00:03
Red 4 said:
So what ?
Pay is different to accrual.
I think (from memory) the 87 pension is based on the best of your last 2 (possibly 3) years pensionable pay. I'd have to double check that.
Correct!Pay is different to accrual.
I think (from memory) the 87 pension is based on the best of your last 2 (possibly 3) years pensionable pay. I'd have to double check that.
1987 Scheme said:
“Your pension benefits are calculated based on your average pensionable pay, which is normally your pensionable pay for your final 12 months of service. If your pensionable pay in one of the preceding two years was higher, then this will be used instead.
Red 4 said:
Nope - that's what you said.
Utter nonsense (again).
I knew it was something to do with the final three so i'll take half a point - personally wasnt bothered at the time - just knew that at midnight on my 49th birthday I was retired and i'd have a lump sum and pension within a couple of days - Utter nonsense (again).
Bigends said:
I knew it was something to do with the final three so i'll take half a point - personally wasnt bothered at the time - just knew that at midnight on my 49th birthday I was retired and i'd have a lump sum and pension within a couple of days -
Quarter point.I'm feeling generous.
crankedup said:
Red 4 said:
djc206 said:
Don’t firemen get more time off than police officers though? My fiancées ex was a fireman and he was a plasterer on the side. Or has that changed now as well?
I think some firemen will be getting lots and lots of time off.The govt has introduced a fitness test for the Fire Service which,is very difficult to pass in your 50's.
The government's own research tells them this - but they don't appear to care/ they want it that way.
The result will be dismissal on capability grounds if fire officers fail the test.
Pension frozen and not payable until age 67/ 68.
The government will save a fortune.
The police fitness test is currently easy.
The question is will it remain that way ?
There is lots of money to be saved by binning officers early and deferring their pensions
The situation for these guys is currently worse;
http://www.civilnuclearpolicefederation.org.uk/ind...
They are all AFOs and are required to carry weapons at all times.
Their retirement age is 67 !!
If they fail fitness (at AFO level) or firearms requals they get binned.
No ifs, no buts, no pension (it will be deferred).
Red 4 said:
No. You're wrong again.
The commutation issue was due to a retired fireman suing the government because they did not increase the commutation factors when they should have.
See Milne v Government Actuary Dept.
It was a joint action between the police Federation and the fire service. The commutation issue was due to a retired fireman suing the government because they did not increase the commutation factors when they should have.
See Milne v Government Actuary Dept.
They discovered it first of all and, despite having overwhelming evidence of being underpaid, the government decided to keep their money. Unbelievable I know. They took legal advice but were told that the battle to get their money would be long as the government would continually appeal on points of law to ensure that the fire service would run out out money.
I don't know who went to whom but the Federation got involved and, having the funds, decided to go in with the fire service. The major funding was from the Federation. They used the case of the fire service officer as a test case, but it was a 'class action' as such.
The government did indeed use delaying tactics and quite a number of those owed money died in the intervening years. I'm sure the HO was really upset.
Even when they paid out, they used the base rate to calculate interest, so keeping some of the money.
I run a NARPO website and followed the case through, with frequent updates. The case was as clear cut as any and at not time did the HO get a decision, yet they continued to keep other people's money. It cost the taxpayer. Money was thrown at lawyers and the Federation and fire service got costs.
This, and another civil case brought by the Fed, is what started May on her rant against the Fed having the cheek to have money in the bank. She even went so far as to remove funding for the Federation, despite it being imposed on the service. It's like CID having to fund their own department.
Nasty government, nasty woman.
For anyone else suffering under the cloud of the England defeat Saturday, here's a laugh to brighten your day. In one way, like the match, it is tragic, but in another way it is hilarious.
sidicks said:
Red 4 said:
Not really.
You expect 60 year olds to be rolling 'round on the floor with pissed/ coked up 18 year old scaffolders (for example) ?
No, but presumably as officers become more experienced, the nature of their role changes?You expect 60 year olds to be rolling 'round on the floor with pissed/ coked up 18 year old scaffolders (for example) ?
Derek Smith said:
For anyone else suffering under the cloud of the England defeat Saturday, here's a laugh to brighten your day. In one way, like the match, it is tragic, but in another way it is hilarious.
So the nature of the job doesn’t change for most police officers?sidicks said:
Red 4 said:
Not really.
You expect 60 year olds to be rolling 'round on the floor with pissed/ coked up 18 year old scaffolders (for example) ?
No, but presumably as officers become more experienced, the nature of their role changes?You expect 60 year olds to be rolling 'round on the floor with pissed/ coked up 18 year old scaffolders (for example) ?
Are you going to lie about the cost of police pensions again Derek?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff