Question about police pensions
Discussion
Red 4 said:
La Liga said:
o what?
It meant you'd receive a much bigger pension for 1 year at a higher rank. It also delays progression for people who genuinely wanted to be substantive at those ranks.
That's not fair and small wonder that got reformed.
I take your point but that could also have a flip-side.It meant you'd receive a much bigger pension for 1 year at a higher rank. It also delays progression for people who genuinely wanted to be substantive at those ranks.
That's not fair and small wonder that got reformed.
What if an officer was subject to discipline and received a reduction in rank (that was possible before the Regs were changed in 2008).
I knew a DS who yo-yo'd between DC and DS (barking mad).
I believe it's still possible in Scotland.
La Liga said:
My view would be they shouldn't have committed misconduct.
Simplistic view.The sanction is (or was) reduction in rank. .
They would have been overpaying contributions at the higher rank (possibly for many years) for the pension they could receive.
It smacks of being punished twice to me.
Reduction in rank is still possible under Unsatisfactory Performance Procedures - what if that were the case ?
Edited by Red 4 on Monday 26th February 14:10
Red 4 said:
Simplistic view.
The sanction is (or was) reduction in rank. .
They would have been overpaying contributions at the higher rank(possibly for many years) for the pension they could receive.
It smacks of being punished twice to me.
I think the double-jeopardy is what concerns me. A police officer has higher standards to conform to and is already punished accordingly. It seems to be additional unregulated punishment by pension.The sanction is (or was) reduction in rank. .
They would have been overpaying contributions at the higher rank(possibly for many years) for the pension they could receive.
It smacks of being punished twice to me.
It's not as one can trust those in authority.
Red 4 said:
La Liga said:
My view would be they shouldn't have committed misconduct.
Simplistic view.The sanction is (or was) reduction in rank. .
They would have been overpaying contributions at the higher rank (possibly for many years) for the pension they could receive.
It smacks of being punished twice to me.
Reduction in rank is still possible under Unsatisfactory Performance Procedures - what if that were the case ?
Similarly, if anyone gets a reduction of rank via UPP then they're probably amongst the most useless to have ever worn the uniform given how easy it is to get off it / reset it.
It's a pretty much non-existent risk now, isn't it? Correct me if I'm wrong, but you'd need someone of a substantive rank who avoided the tapering to go through UPP enough times to lose a rank.
The changes in pension (and misconduct) both remove the benefit of being able to be temp for a year and receive a much higher pension (well, you'd still benefit but it'd be averaged), and also the risk for someone who was relying on the last two years but was reduced in rank through misconduct.
La Liga said:
It's a pretty much non-existent risk now, isn't it? Correct me if I'm wrong, but you'd need someone of a substantive rank who avoided the tapering to go through UPP enough times to lose a rank.
The changes in pension (and misconduct) both remove the benefit of being able to be temp for a year and get a higher pension (well, you'd still benefit but it'd be averaged), and also the risk for someone who was relying on the last two years but was reduced in rank through misconduct.
.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-37768421
I'm making lots of assumption here (because I cba checking), but you get the point.
I think we agree - You can argue career average both ways.
Edited by Red 4 on Monday 26th February 14:37
Red 4 said:
La Liga said:
It's a pretty much non-existent risk now, isn't it? Correct me if I'm wrong, but you'd need someone of a substantive rank who avoided the tapering to go through UPP enough times to lose a rank.
The changes in pension (and misconduct) both remove the benefit of being able to be temp for a year and get a higher pension (well, you'd still benefit but it'd be averaged), and also the risk for someone who was relying on the last two years but was reduced in rank through misconduct.
.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-37768421
I'm making lots of assumption here (because I cba checking), but you get the point.
I think we agree - You can argue career average both ways.
I wonder if she'd done her 30 on the 1987 scheme and remained working (if that could work in terms of protecting the pension).
Alternatively, if she retried a month after demotion she'd still have a year (out of the last two) at Insp wage.
There could be other permutations like she'd reached 55 years old etc etc.
La Liga said:
I wonder if she'd done her 30 on the 1987 scheme and remained working (if that could work in terms of protecting the pension).
Alternatively, if she retried a month after demotion she'd still have a year (out of the last two) at Insp wage.
There could be other permutations like she'd reached 55 years old etc etc.
You can go after 25 years on the 87 scheme - with an immediate short service pension if you're over 50Alternatively, if she retried a month after demotion she'd still have a year (out of the last two) at Insp wage.
There could be other permutations like she'd reached 55 years old etc etc.
Sadler was 51..
If you stay after 30 years your contributions stop - so you get more pay but qualify for full pension when you retire.
I agree - doesn't seem right. Another officer involved in the Worthington case also retired around the same time iirc.
Red 4 said:
You can go after 25 years on the 87 scheme - with an immediate short service pension if you're over 50
Sadler was 51..
If you stay after 30 years your contributions stop - so you get more pay but qualify for full pension when you retire.
I agree - doesn't seem right. Another officer involved in the Worthington case also retired around the same time iirc.
I think the Supt involved was either at his 30 years, or reached it between the case and the IPCC's conclusions when he retired, which I don't really have an issue with. Sadler was 51..
If you stay after 30 years your contributions stop - so you get more pay but qualify for full pension when you retire.
I agree - doesn't seem right. Another officer involved in the Worthington case also retired around the same time iirc.
La Liga said:
I think the Supt involved was either at his 30 years, or reached it between the case and the IPCC's conclusions when he retired, which I don't really have an issue with.
Yeah, he'll have done his 30.If you go before that, unless on grounds of ill health, it makes a huge difference to the lump sum (which is substantial for a Super retiring on ill health or after 30 years).
Edited by Red 4 on Monday 26th February 16:08
Red 4 said:
sidicks said:
Was future accrual under the 87 scheme not discontinued when the 2015 rules were out in place?
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.
V8 Fettler said:
Does that apply to all members of DB pension schemes within 10 years of retirement, public and private sector?
I think this is pretty standard for public sector. The best private sector schemes would also offer aim to offer some similar protection for those closest to retirement.
<quiet, slightly scared voice> - mods, my original question has been answered and the thread title and early posts are now misleading, any chance of moving unrelated posts or retitling the thread (not wanting to stifle debate but rather more accurate indicate what the thread is now about)?
It appears to be getting very very cross, oops. On the plus side, I’ve never caused a war before, at least not as far as I know!
It appears to be getting very very cross, oops. On the plus side, I’ve never caused a war before, at least not as far as I know!
ChevronB19 said:
<quiet, slightly scared voice> - mods, my original question has been answered and the thread title and early posts are now misleading, any chance of moving unrelated posts or retitling the thread (not wanting to stifle debate but rather more accurate indicate what the thread is now about)?
It appears to be getting very very cross, oops. On the plus side, I’ve never caused a war before, at least not as far as I know!
SP&L wouldn't be the same without the odd insult/ personal attack thrown in for good measure. It appears to be getting very very cross, oops. On the plus side, I’ve never caused a war before, at least not as far as I know!
I thought this thread was quite tame compared to some others I've seen.
La Liga said:
Sidicks, do you know what flexibility someone has with their pension if they leave the police early well before 50 etc.
Is there a way to move it into a SIPP?
Apols for sticking my nose in, but do you think you'd get a better deal elsewhere ?Is there a way to move it into a SIPP?
10 years on the '06 scheme (or thereabouts) ?
Edited by Red 4 on Monday 26th February 19:09
La Liga said:
Sidicks, do you know what flexibility someone has with their pension if they leave the police early well before 50 etc.
Is there a way to move it into a SIPP?
Sorry, I’m not sure if there is the option of a transfer value out of the scheme. Seems unlikely but I could be wrong - advising individual members isn’t my area of expertise.Is there a way to move it into a SIPP?
sidicks said:
Sorry, I’m not sure if there is the option of a transfer value out of the scheme. Seems unlikely but I could be wrong - advising individual members isn’t my area of expertise.
There is on the '87 scheme.Time limits apply - 6 months from leaving or 12 months if it's going into another public sector scheme.
I'd imagine similar rules apply for the later schemes.
Edited by Red 4 on Monday 26th February 19:26
Red 4 said:
There is on the '87 scheme.
Time limits apply - 6 months from leaving or 12 months if it's going into another public sector scheme.
I'd imagine similar rules apply for the later schemes.
Which means this is incorrect.Time limits apply - 6 months from leaving or 12 months if it's going into another public sector scheme.
I'd imagine similar rules apply for the later schemes.
money advice service said:
What you can and can’t transfer
If you’re in what’s called an ‘unfunded’ public sector pension scheme, you won’t be able to transfer your pension.
Examples of an unfunded public sector pension scheme are the Teachers Scheme and the NHS scheme.
You will be able to transfer your pension if you’re in a:
Private sector defined benefit scheme, or
Funded public sector pension scheme (such as the local government pension)
The Pensions Regulatory produced this:If you’re in what’s called an ‘unfunded’ public sector pension scheme, you won’t be able to transfer your pension.
Examples of an unfunded public sector pension scheme are the Teachers Scheme and the NHS scheme.
You will be able to transfer your pension if you’re in a:
Private sector defined benefit scheme, or
Funded public sector pension scheme (such as the local government pension)
http://www.thepensionsregulator.gov.uk/docs/db-dc-...
But again, that only refers to funded public sector schemes.
On review, you are correct that you certainly can under the 1987, 2006 and 2015 schemes. I guess the key is how they calculate the transfer value, which I suspect is unlikely to be attractive, as they would not want to encourage transfers away when there are no funds supporting the liabilities.
Edited by sidicks on Monday 26th February 19:44
sidicks said:
Red 4 said:
There is on the '87 scheme.
Time limits apply - 6 months from leaving or 12 months if it's going into another public sector scheme.
I'd imagine similar rules apply for the later schemes.
Really? Time limits apply - 6 months from leaving or 12 months if it's going into another public sector scheme.
I'd imagine similar rules apply for the later schemes.
Edited by Red 4 on Monday 26th February 19:26
money advice service said:
What you can and can’t transfer
If you’re in what’s called an ‘unfunded’ public sector pension scheme, you won’t be able to transfer your pension.
Examples of an unfunded public sector pension scheme are the Teachers Scheme and the NHS scheme.
You will be able to transfer your pension if you’re in a:
Private sector defined benefit scheme, or
Funded public sector pension scheme (such as the local government pension)
If you’re in what’s called an ‘unfunded’ public sector pension scheme, you won’t be able to transfer your pension.
Examples of an unfunded public sector pension scheme are the Teachers Scheme and the NHS scheme.
You will be able to transfer your pension if you’re in a:
Private sector defined benefit scheme, or
Funded public sector pension scheme (such as the local government pension)
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff