Question about police pensions
Discussion
pavarotti1980 said:
sidicks said:
Not answering a question because you don't have any knowledge about the issue is not being 'slippery'. It's being sensible. HTH
Feel free to keep failing at petty point scoring, whilst everyone else tries to discuss the issues.
Didn't say I had knowledge. I asked if the cops posting were wrong? So let's try again...... Feel free to keep failing at petty point scoring, whilst everyone else tries to discuss the issues.
I didn't answer the question because I don't have any knowledge about the issue. That is in no way being 'slippery', it's being sensible. HTH
sidicks said:
wiliferus said:
The reforms have added 10 years 8 months to my service, and both my lump sum and annual pension will be reduced. Working longer for less. And not forgetting my contributions have gone up too.
The benefits that you carried under the 1987 scheme up until 2015 were protected, right? So you will have 18 years on those Final Salary terms. And now you are on the 2015 scheme for future accrual? Is that correct?As the NPA of the 1987 scheme is 50 (?), if you work longer than that and don't take that pension in the meantime, then I believe that your 1987 pension will be actuarily increased - have you factored that into your calculations?
My understanding is that there was no automatic lump sum for the 1987 scheme?
wiliferus said:
Never ceases to amaze me how many people think the Police pension is a non contribution pension.
I think the contribution rate is among the highest in the public sector?And yes, I pay ~£400 pcm into the pension, so it’s a lot of cash... albeit I’m under no illusions that it is still a decent pension compared to most.
The lump sum isn’t automatic. My understanding is the lump sum is an arrangement between you and the pension provider at the time of drawing.
sidicks said:
Gee, you really are stupid! Let me try again, as simply as I possibly can for your benefit:
I didn't answer the question because I don't have any knowledge about the issue. That is in no way being 'slippery', it's being sensible. HTH
Bit you continued to try and correct them and tell them they were wrong.. I didn't answer the question because I don't have any knowledge about the issue. That is in no way being 'slippery', it's being sensible. HTH
wiliferus said:
My projected statement which comes each year has decreased, this takes into account the fact that technically I’ve have two pensions. I’m assuming the pension provider take into account factors such as accrual beyond my 30 years service on the 87 pension.
The pension statement should make it clear what assumptions are made about future accrual.wiliferus said:
And yes, I pay ~£400 pcm into the pension, so it’s a lot of cash... albeit I’m under no illusions that it is still a decent pension compared to most.
I'm pleased!wiliferus said:
The lump sum isn’t automatic. My understanding is the lump sum is an arrangement between you and the pension provider at the time of drawing.
See the earlier posts, there are prescribed factors for converting pension into lump sums, depending on which scheme you are in and your age when you retire.
wiliferus said:
TheBear said:
How do you have 17 years in a scheme that finished in 2006 but only 20 years service 12 years later and still in the job?
Joined late ‘97. The 87 only closed in 2006 to new joiners. Those already in the scheme stayed in till it closed in 2015 and were transferred to the 2015 scheme. In being transferred to the new scheme if I want my pension to mature to full value I need to work till I’m 60 now instead of serving for 30 years. So have 20 years in, and 20 to do having joined at 19 years old. sidicks said:
Red 4 said:
Not necessarily.
Plus - if you are not deployable; i.e. pass fitness tests/ self defence, etc. you face a reduction in pay and the possibilty of dismissal.
Have a look at The Winsor Reforms - pensions were only part of the changes.
But if you can't do the job, why shouldn't you be dismissed?Plus - if you are not deployable; i.e. pass fitness tests/ self defence, etc. you face a reduction in pay and the possibilty of dismissal.
Have a look at The Winsor Reforms - pensions were only part of the changes.
Edited by sidicks on Sunday 25th February 17:54
ChevronB19 said:
OP here - thanks for the many informative answers, and sorry for (re)opening what appears to be a massive can of worms, eek!
To summarise: A police officer's pension can be forfeited. However, there are strict protocols. It is only for the most serious of offences.
A police officer's pension can be, depending on service and type, forfeit to an extent if they resign or are sacked.
The pension is known as golden handcuffs because it is only valuable if you serve the full term, and the full term is decided by the employer. This was one of its major functions and it hits it square.
If an officer suffers an injury whereby he cannot perform his/her function then they can have their pay stopped, even if they suffered that injury in service. They cannot have an ill-health pension if, at any future date, which includes after they would have been forced to retire, they might, and might is the word, recover enough to perform a function in service. The judgement is made by doctors and others in the pay of the employer, who gains tremendously if an ill-health pension is refused.
sidicks said:
More ignorance and lies from you. I've not corrected anyone about this issue.
Some examples. But of course you have no knowledge and havent attempted to correct anyone.No bother Kenny Senior 
sidicks said:
You do hate it when your lies about Police pensions are revealed, don't you Derek!!
sidicks said:
The benefits that you carried under the 1987 scheme up until 2015 were protected, right? So you will have 18 years on those Final Salary terms. And now you are on the 2015 scheme for future accrual? Is that correct?
As the NPA of the 1987 scheme is 50 (?), if you work longer than that and don't take that pension in the meantime, then I believe that your 1987 pension will be actuarily increased - have you factored that into your calculations?
My understanding is that there was no automatic lump sum for the 1987 scheme?
As the NPA of the 1987 scheme is 50 (?), if you work longer than that and don't take that pension in the meantime, then I believe that your 1987 pension will be actuarily increased - have you factored that into your calculations?
My understanding is that there was no automatic lump sum for the 1987 scheme?
sidicks said:
I think the contribution rate is among the highest in the public sector?
sidicks said:
Maybe i wasn't clear.
The OP will have 18 years service within the 1987 scheme. This entitles him to a pension from age 50 based on the service. If he continues to work until age 60, in line with the retirement age of the 2015 scheme, then the pension from the 1987 scheme will be increased accordingly if it is taken at age 60, rather than 50, which could be a significant uplift. I am unclear if the OP has taken this into account.
The OP will have 18 years service within the 1987 scheme. This entitles him to a pension from age 50 based on the service. If he continues to work until age 60, in line with the retirement age of the 2015 scheme, then the pension from the 1987 scheme will be increased accordingly if it is taken at age 60, rather than 50, which could be a significant uplift. I am unclear if the OP has taken this into account.
sidicks said:
There is no automatic lump sum on the 1987 scheme. It is obtained by giving up pension. As the pension is payable for a longer period (from age 50) then commutation factors will inevitably be higher than under the later schemes which have a higher retirement age. Note that the commutation factors aren't actually that generous in the current economic environment..
pavarotti1980 said:
sidicks said:
More ignorance and lies from you. I've not corrected anyone about this issue.
Some examples.pavarotti1980 said:
But of course you have no knowledge and havent attempted to correct anyone.
I have had some discussions on an entirely different issue, highlighting some additional information where I did have some knowledge. All of which was accurate with the exception of the commutation factors, which have recently been updated.Funnily enough, no-one was complaining when these factors were updated (due to market conditions) in favour of the officers...
Edited by sidicks on Sunday 25th February 20:31
TheBear said:
I was amazed at the difference between the pension value at 55 as opposed to 60. Almost double for me, don't know if that's typical but presume so.
A combination of 2 factors:- working to 60 rather than 55 means that there a 5 years of additional accrual towards benefits and the pension itself is expected to be in payment for 5 years left.
Doubling does seem quite a big difference, particularly if you already have a lot of service,
Terzo123 said:
Because they signed up for 30 years service and would have hoped to have been fit to complete those 30 years, not the 42 years service some are now potentially facing having to do.
It does appear that the transition arrangements weren't very well thought through. It certainly makes sense to change the rules for future accrual, but it appears that greater recognition could have been given to the terms of benefits already accrued.sidicks said:
A combination of 2 factors:
- working to 60 rather than 55 means that there a 5 years of additional accrual towards benefits and the pension itself is expected to be in payment for 5 years left.
Doubling does seem quite a big difference, particularly if you already have a lot of service,
The Police pension used to make its biggest gains in the final three years- working to 60 rather than 55 means that there a 5 years of additional accrual towards benefits and the pension itself is expected to be in payment for 5 years left.
Doubling does seem quite a big difference, particularly if you already have a lot of service,
Bigends said:
sidicks said:
Which must be due to significant pay rises in the last 3 years, as the accrual rate doesn't change over that period?
Wouldnt know now though that was the case 12yrs ago when I got mineI'm 11 years in, have 24 years to do and have been on top whack PC for over 12 months. I think it's reached in 9 years now?
sidicks said:
Which must be due to significant pay rises in the last 3 years, as the accrual rate doesn't change over that period?
I’m not Police but our DB scheme has some sort of flex agreement that allows people to go at 57 instead of 60 for only a small penalty, going at 55 by comparison is ruinous.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff