https://www.uk-fire.net/forum2/ Sat, 24 Oct 2026 09:39:40 +0000 MyBB https://www.uk-fire.net/forum2/showthread.php?tid=29413 Sat, 26 Jul 2025 01:18:12 +0000 bill.advanced]]> https://www.uk-fire.net/forum2/showthread.php?tid=29413

Thousands of retained firefighters owed pensions, union says https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn5k5gykvklo]]>

Thousands of retained firefighters owed pensions, union says https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn5k5gykvklo]]> https://www.uk-fire.net/forum2/showthread.php?tid=29390 Wed, 02 Apr 2025 15:09:35 +0000 Tezzer]]> https://www.uk-fire.net/forum2/showthread.php?tid=29390 https://www.uk-fire.net/forum2/showthread.php?tid=29360 Sat, 20 Jul 2024 09:44:11 +0000 The Bald One]]> https://www.uk-fire.net/forum2/showthread.php?tid=29360 Age Discrimination Retrospective Remedy....


There is a letter going around in Kent to retired FF's suggesting something wrong with the lump sums given out !!...is this a generic letter do you think ?....

I think it is a generic letter that they send to everyone, regardless of whether they are affected by the issue or not. I had something similar from my brigade which doesn't affect me.
But it's a bit worrying to get it !!!

Letter reads....



We are writing to you today to firstly apologise for the protracted delay in sending your RSS, as we do acknowledge that you would have liked this issue to have been resolved as soon as possible after 1 October 2023. Unfortunately, we have been navigating several policy issues on the application of tax and interest which have been outside our control. Some of these issues have now been clarified, however, there is still one ongoing matter which affects your case and prevents us, at this stage, from providing you with your RSS.



The issue relates to the calculation required for top-up lump sums and the offsetting of previous tax paid to HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC). It has been confirmed that our understanding of how you would offset the original unauthorised payment made to HMRC does not align with current HMRC policy. Currently there is no provision within HMRC legislation that allows an offset approach for individuals who have made an unauthorised payment through the mandating process (which you did when you originally retired). This position, if left without a solution, will mean that you become liable for more tax which is not currently reclaimable either via HMRC or the compensation mechanism in the Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Act 2022.

And finishes with.....



We appreciate that this news will come as a disappointment and apologise for the distress and inconvenience caused. You have our commitment that we will closely monitor the situation and ensure that you are kept up to date as things progress.

Information about the Firefighters’ Pension Schemes, the 2015 age discrimination remedy, can be found here https://fpsmember.org/.

Many thanks in advance if any one knows anything !..]]> Age Discrimination Retrospective Remedy....


There is a letter going around in Kent to retired FF's suggesting something wrong with the lump sums given out !!...is this a generic letter do you think ?....

I think it is a generic letter that they send to everyone, regardless of whether they are affected by the issue or not. I had something similar from my brigade which doesn't affect me.
But it's a bit worrying to get it !!!

Letter reads....



We are writing to you today to firstly apologise for the protracted delay in sending your RSS, as we do acknowledge that you would have liked this issue to have been resolved as soon as possible after 1 October 2023. Unfortunately, we have been navigating several policy issues on the application of tax and interest which have been outside our control. Some of these issues have now been clarified, however, there is still one ongoing matter which affects your case and prevents us, at this stage, from providing you with your RSS.



The issue relates to the calculation required for top-up lump sums and the offsetting of previous tax paid to HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC). It has been confirmed that our understanding of how you would offset the original unauthorised payment made to HMRC does not align with current HMRC policy. Currently there is no provision within HMRC legislation that allows an offset approach for individuals who have made an unauthorised payment through the mandating process (which you did when you originally retired). This position, if left without a solution, will mean that you become liable for more tax which is not currently reclaimable either via HMRC or the compensation mechanism in the Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Act 2022.

And finishes with.....



We appreciate that this news will come as a disappointment and apologise for the distress and inconvenience caused. You have our commitment that we will closely monitor the situation and ensure that you are kept up to date as things progress.

Information about the Firefighters’ Pension Schemes, the 2015 age discrimination remedy, can be found here https://fpsmember.org/.

Many thanks in advance if any one knows anything !..]]> https://www.uk-fire.net/forum2/showthread.php?tid=29312 Thu, 02 Mar 2023 16:00:18 +0000 moneybags-b77]]> https://www.uk-fire.net/forum2/showthread.php?tid=29312
The SPPA has issued a circular detailing the 'in payment' pension increase from April 2023, see:

https://pensions.gov.scot/sites/default/...1_2023.pdf]]>
The SPPA has issued a circular detailing the 'in payment' pension increase from April 2023, see:

https://pensions.gov.scot/sites/default/...1_2023.pdf]]> https://www.uk-fire.net/forum2/showthread.php?tid=29254 Fri, 28 Oct 2022 12:09:14 +0000 ben]]> https://www.uk-fire.net/forum2/showthread.php?tid=29254 My pension like many others was contracted out for a while, and the question is do i need to pay the shortfall, my forecast is £185.15 per week or £805.07 per month and 9,660.86 per year.
Do I need to do anything regards this shortfall, thanks in advance]]> My pension like many others was contracted out for a while, and the question is do i need to pay the shortfall, my forecast is £185.15 per week or £805.07 per month and 9,660.86 per year.
Do I need to do anything regards this shortfall, thanks in advance]]> https://www.uk-fire.net/forum2/showthread.php?tid=29208 Thu, 12 May 2022 19:05:13 +0000 Warby]]> https://www.uk-fire.net/forum2/showthread.php?tid=29208 https://www.uk-fire.net/forum2/showthread.php?tid=29202 Thu, 24 Mar 2022 11:20:42 +0000 wombat7862]]> https://www.uk-fire.net/forum2/showthread.php?tid=29202
I am still struggling to get my head around the whole COPE thing and the more I read the more confused I get.

Can someone who actually is in receipt of their State Pension answer this please:

I joined the FFPS in 1981 and retired in 2012 and so far I have 36 years of Full NI Contributions and am thinking of making up some more with Voluntary Contributions before I reach State Pension age in 2029 (assuming they don't move it again before then).

According to my State Pension Summary online it says that based upon my NI record up to 5 April 2021 my State Pension would be £149.92 a week and the most I could get is £179.60 (which implies purchasing additional years). That's all understandable.

It also states I have been in a contracted out pension scheme and that my Contracted Out Pension Equivalent (COPE) estimate is £89.32 a week.

It then goes on to say that "this will not affect your State Pension forecast. The COPE amount is paid as part of your other pension schemes, not by the government."

So am I right in thinking that based upon my current contributions my actual State Pension will be £149.92 - £89.32 = £60.60 a week? or are the COPE figures just their to confuse as they would have been part of the Additional State Pension, i.e. SERPS which would have been above the Standard State Pension?

If someone who is currently receiving their Brigade pension and State Pension could possibly answer I would be grateful.

If you could please say how many years NI contributions you had made and how your State Pension differs from the theoretical maximum you could get, i.e. is the COPE amount actually deducted from the State Pension because I definitely don't think the FFPS will make up the difference and start paying me the £89.32 a week when I start claiming the State Pension, I expect that we all have been shafted by this but to what degree.

Many thanks in advance.]]>
I am still struggling to get my head around the whole COPE thing and the more I read the more confused I get.

Can someone who actually is in receipt of their State Pension answer this please:

I joined the FFPS in 1981 and retired in 2012 and so far I have 36 years of Full NI Contributions and am thinking of making up some more with Voluntary Contributions before I reach State Pension age in 2029 (assuming they don't move it again before then).

According to my State Pension Summary online it says that based upon my NI record up to 5 April 2021 my State Pension would be £149.92 a week and the most I could get is £179.60 (which implies purchasing additional years). That's all understandable.

It also states I have been in a contracted out pension scheme and that my Contracted Out Pension Equivalent (COPE) estimate is £89.32 a week.

It then goes on to say that "this will not affect your State Pension forecast. The COPE amount is paid as part of your other pension schemes, not by the government."

So am I right in thinking that based upon my current contributions my actual State Pension will be £149.92 - £89.32 = £60.60 a week? or are the COPE figures just their to confuse as they would have been part of the Additional State Pension, i.e. SERPS which would have been above the Standard State Pension?

If someone who is currently receiving their Brigade pension and State Pension could possibly answer I would be grateful.

If you could please say how many years NI contributions you had made and how your State Pension differs from the theoretical maximum you could get, i.e. is the COPE amount actually deducted from the State Pension because I definitely don't think the FFPS will make up the difference and start paying me the £89.32 a week when I start claiming the State Pension, I expect that we all have been shafted by this but to what degree.

Many thanks in advance.]]> https://www.uk-fire.net/forum2/showthread.php?tid=29141 Fri, 08 Oct 2021 19:10:55 +0000 bill.advanced]]> https://www.uk-fire.net/forum2/showthread.php?tid=29141
Following an agreement reached between the FBU and the Local Government Association (LGA), eligible members will likely be able to have their cases dealt with within 90 days of making an applicationinstead of waiting until legislation remedying the issue is introduced in October 2023.
Read the story
Read the circular]]>
Following an agreement reached between the FBU and the Local Government Association (LGA), eligible members will likely be able to have their cases dealt with within 90 days of making an applicationinstead of waiting until legislation remedying the issue is introduced in October 2023.
Read the story
Read the circular]]> https://www.uk-fire.net/forum2/showthread.php?tid=29118 Tue, 24 Aug 2021 11:48:45 +0000 brumble49]]> https://www.uk-fire.net/forum2/showthread.php?tid=29118

Pensions update
August 23, 2021

Download Circular (docx)
Circular ref
2021HOC0445MR


Dear Brother/Sister,

Pensions Update

This update is provided to reassure members of the continued progress on a number of pension related matters. All of the matters detailed within this circular are subject to either ongoing legal proceedings, will be the subject of future legal proceedings or are currently being progressed through without prejudice legal meetings.



Immediate Detriment

As detailed in previous circulars “Immediate detriment” cases are members who have retired since 1 April 2015 or who will retire before October 2023 and who, because of the age discrimination proved in the Sargeant case, are paid benefits on the basis of the rules of the ‘wrong’ pension scheme. Typically, they are members who were transferred from the FPS 1992 to the FPS 2015. They should be paid on the terms of the FPS 1992 but are being paid FPS 2015 benefits.

There are two main categories of members in this position:

1. Members who retired early on the grounds of ill-health and are receiving lower tier (unenhanced) 2015 scheme benefits. They should be getting enhanced 1992 FPS benefits.
   
2. Members who have reached the stage where they could have retired from the FPS 1992 because their age and length of service, added together, totals 75 or more. This is a smaller but growing category.
   

We have issued court proceedings for three members, two in category (1) and one in category (2). They are due to be heard in the High Court on 20 or 21 October. As previously reported, we have applied for summary judgement.

There have been a number of without prejudice meetings with the LGA and Bevan Brittan (solicitors acting for the FRAs) and further meetings are scheduled, but the cut-off date to reach agreement is 20 October. The union is making good progress on all immediate detriment issues, not just those in the two categories.

The government published the Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Bill on 19 July 2021 to set the framework for remedying the discrimination (and to close the 1992 and 2006 schemes finally). It sets out how the government wishes to sort out all cases where a member is owed compensation for the discrimination. It will not provide a remedy until October 2023 unless a scheme can commit the administrative resources to sort them out sooner – and it is anticipated that most schemes will not.

The current without prejudice immediate detriment negotiations, set against the backdrop of the FBU legal challenge, seek to address the immediate detriment issues and provide a timeframe for the FRAs to follow to process retirements and resolve detriment for those already retired. The negotiations are detailed and complex, the nature of the issues and lack of direction from HMT make them so. Issues discussed include (non-exhaustive list): shortfall in retirement lump sum and past pension payments, interest on shortfall, employee contributions (shortfall), tax relief on employee contributions, contribution holidays (inc 18-20 cohort), interest payable on employee contributions owed and tax.

Rest assured that if any additional tax must be paid, the Unions position is that the FRAs will have to pay it. There is no guarantee that all issues will be able to be resolved, but if they cannot be agreed through the without prejudice negotiations then they will be dealt with in the October hearing.



RDS Employment Tribunal Pension Claims

(Matthews and others v Kent and Medway Towns Fire Authority and others)



Negotiations have been taking place with the Home Office and the FRAs nationally to bring final settlement to the pension’s aspects of the Employment Tribunal claims brought on behalf of RDS members under the Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 (‘PTWR’).

Membership of the Modified Section of the NFPS was opened to RDS firefighters in respect of service between 1 July 2000 and 5 April 2006 (with the NFPS permitting membership for RDS firefighters from 6 April 2006 anyway). All individuals with service between these dates (regardless of whether they had lodged an Employment Tribunal claim, or whether they remained in service) were to have been given the opportunity to take part in an ‘options exercise’. Individuals should have received information in 2014/15 to explain what they could expect to receive in benefits if they chose to take up the option of membership for such periods of service, what they would have to pay in contributions and the steps they needed to take if they wished to take up the option. This was the ‘first options exercise’. We know that at least one Authority did not fulfil its duties in this regard.

The ‘first options exercise’ only permitted service going as far back as 1 July 2000 to be taken into account for membership of the Modified Section of the NFPS. It remained legally uncertain whether previous service could be taken into account. For this reason, the Employment Tribunal claims were stayed pending resolution of that issue.

The issue was effectively resolved in another case in November 2018, meaning that service going back to the start of employment could be taken into account for the purpose of a claim under PTWR. The Home Office having accepted that the same principles should be applied to the RDS pension claims. The agreement with the Union seeks to resolve these outstanding issues in the RDS Employment Tribunal claims through a ‘second options exercise’.

Eligibility to take part in the second options exercise will apply to those with relevant RDS service which began before 6 April 2006, regardless of whether the RDS firefighter presented a claim to an Employment Tribunal or not.

The position is different for RDS firefighters with exclusively post 1 July 2000 service because the offer they would receive under the second options exercise would not include any service in excess of that which should have been included in their offer under the first options exercise. The logic pursued by the Home Office and the FRAs is that RDS firefighters in this category would be getting a chance to go back on the decision they originally took under the first options exercise. Whilst that argument has force where the first options exercise was properly carried out, it is also the case that at least some FRAs failed to carry out the first options exercise.

The Union and our legal advisors have made the argument throughout that the simplest thing to do would be to re-run the first options exercise for all RDS firefighters. We are hopeful that an agreement will be reached on this issue.

Implementation of the second options exercise will need to take place via statutory instrument amending the NFPS. The Home Office will commit to introducing the legislation ‘as soon as reasonably practicable’. The second options exercise will start as soon as reasonably practicable after the legislation comes into force, and will run for 18 months.

RDS firefighters who decided to take up the offer of membership under the second options exercise will be required to pay relevant employee contributions. Those who have already retired will have interest added to their backdated pension arrears. Those RDS firefighters who take up the offer of membership under the second options exercise who are unable to obtain tax relief through self-assessment will have the costs of purchasing past service reduced to reflect the tax relief that should have been available on their contributions.

Although the requirement to pay arrears of contributions will not be welcome, the value of the extra pension will vastly exceed the value of the contributions due. Members will be given an opportunity to pay over a reasonable period of time, and to pay any outstanding balance out of their additional pension lump sum when they retire. Members will be provided with specific detail and advice following the conclusion of current negotiations.



Cost Control Mechanism 2015 Scheme

Correcting the transitional protection discrimination for all pension schemes, not just firefighter pension schemes, according to the Government’s latest estimate will cost £17bn. The Government proposes to pass the cost of their discrimination on to members of the pension schemes. This is a matter that affects all members of the 2015 Scheme.

The cost control mechanism allows for assessing the cost of providing pensions, and adjusting members’ contributions or benefits if the cost, as assessed by the scheme actuary, diverges from the target cost by more than 2%. This 2% margin is symmetrical. If the assessed cost of the scheme is below the target cost by 2% or more, benefits must be improved or members contributions must be reduced (or a mixture of both). The cost control mechanism has always been presented as a fundamental aspect of the 2015 Scheme.

The most recent completed valuations of the 2015 schemes showed that they were considerably cheaper. In the case of the firefighters’ schemes the new scheme was 5.2% cheaper than anticipated, which would lead to an increase in the accrual rate from 1/59.7 to 1/51.2 (in fact the Scheme Advisory Board [which the FBU has a seat on] recommended a smaller improvement in the accrual rate and an improvement in early retirement reductions making it more palatable to retire before age 60).

Whilst benefits and contribution changes were being negotiated, the McCloud and Sargeant judgment was handed down. The Government “paused” the cost control mechanism, on the basis that until the final outcome of the case was known (an appeal to the Supreme Court was still pending at that time) the cost of the 2015 schemes could not be known.

The Union issued judicial review proceedings to lift the pause and, once lifted, to require the improvements outlined above to be implemented. The detail of the case is complex, but it comes down to: (a) what costs the cost control mechanism measures (b) that the cost of correcting the discrimination is mainly related to the pre-2015 schemes – they have more members than the Government expected because a lot of members did not in fact transfer even if the Government thought that they did. The proceedings are now stayed. They were issued when the cost control mechanism was paused.

The pause has now been lifted, with the Government saying that they will try to pass the cost on to 2015 Scheme members through the cost control process. The way they are doing this is by not initiating improvements in benefits or a reduction in contributions for 2015 Scheme members; they want to use the overall savings in the remedy calculation.

Therefore, the Government are trying to use financial improvements that should rightfully provide improvements in benefits or reduction in contributions to our members to rectify the cost of the Governments discrimination.

The FBU have been clear to all parties though, that the cost of rectifying the Government’s discrimination within the 2015 Scheme transitional protection arrangements must not be passed on to scheme members, but that the improved benefits and/or reduced contributions, as a result of the most recent valuations, must be passed on to scheme members.

The Executive Council recently considered this matter in detail and also considered the legal advice as to the next steps the Union could take. It would be unwise to report that discussion and the decision of the Executive Council as to the legal route to be followed, but members should rest assured that this matter will be pursued through legal channels.

In that vein, I am sure that members will appreciate that for the union to discuss the matters contained within this circular in more detail in an open forum and/or outline the present position in negotiations and/or detail our legal strategy would seriously jeopardise any progress made by the union on these issues. As members can see the Union continues to fight for what rightfully belongs to our members. We are close to concluding negotiations on a number of key pension’s issues.

The Fire Brigades Union remains the only Union fighting these issues for firefighters. There are of course other pensions related matters not reported within this update. The Union continues to fight for resolution of all of those issues, they will be the subject of further updates when it is appropriate to report them.



Yours in unity.



MARK ROWE

National Officer


https://www.fbu.org.uk/circulars/2021hoc...ons-update]]>

Pensions update
August 23, 2021

Download Circular (docx)
Circular ref
2021HOC0445MR


Dear Brother/Sister,

Pensions Update

This update is provided to reassure members of the continued progress on a number of pension related matters. All of the matters detailed within this circular are subject to either ongoing legal proceedings, will be the subject of future legal proceedings or are currently being progressed through without prejudice legal meetings.



Immediate Detriment

As detailed in previous circulars “Immediate detriment” cases are members who have retired since 1 April 2015 or who will retire before October 2023 and who, because of the age discrimination proved in the Sargeant case, are paid benefits on the basis of the rules of the ‘wrong’ pension scheme. Typically, they are members who were transferred from the FPS 1992 to the FPS 2015. They should be paid on the terms of the FPS 1992 but are being paid FPS 2015 benefits.

There are two main categories of members in this position:

1. Members who retired early on the grounds of ill-health and are receiving lower tier (unenhanced) 2015 scheme benefits. They should be getting enhanced 1992 FPS benefits.
   
2. Members who have reached the stage where they could have retired from the FPS 1992 because their age and length of service, added together, totals 75 or more. This is a smaller but growing category.
   

We have issued court proceedings for three members, two in category (1) and one in category (2). They are due to be heard in the High Court on 20 or 21 October. As previously reported, we have applied for summary judgement.

There have been a number of without prejudice meetings with the LGA and Bevan Brittan (solicitors acting for the FRAs) and further meetings are scheduled, but the cut-off date to reach agreement is 20 October. The union is making good progress on all immediate detriment issues, not just those in the two categories.

The government published the Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Bill on 19 July 2021 to set the framework for remedying the discrimination (and to close the 1992 and 2006 schemes finally). It sets out how the government wishes to sort out all cases where a member is owed compensation for the discrimination. It will not provide a remedy until October 2023 unless a scheme can commit the administrative resources to sort them out sooner – and it is anticipated that most schemes will not.

The current without prejudice immediate detriment negotiations, set against the backdrop of the FBU legal challenge, seek to address the immediate detriment issues and provide a timeframe for the FRAs to follow to process retirements and resolve detriment for those already retired. The negotiations are detailed and complex, the nature of the issues and lack of direction from HMT make them so. Issues discussed include (non-exhaustive list): shortfall in retirement lump sum and past pension payments, interest on shortfall, employee contributions (shortfall), tax relief on employee contributions, contribution holidays (inc 18-20 cohort), interest payable on employee contributions owed and tax.

Rest assured that if any additional tax must be paid, the Unions position is that the FRAs will have to pay it. There is no guarantee that all issues will be able to be resolved, but if they cannot be agreed through the without prejudice negotiations then they will be dealt with in the October hearing.



RDS Employment Tribunal Pension Claims

(Matthews and others v Kent and Medway Towns Fire Authority and others)



Negotiations have been taking place with the Home Office and the FRAs nationally to bring final settlement to the pension’s aspects of the Employment Tribunal claims brought on behalf of RDS members under the Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 (‘PTWR’).

Membership of the Modified Section of the NFPS was opened to RDS firefighters in respect of service between 1 July 2000 and 5 April 2006 (with the NFPS permitting membership for RDS firefighters from 6 April 2006 anyway). All individuals with service between these dates (regardless of whether they had lodged an Employment Tribunal claim, or whether they remained in service) were to have been given the opportunity to take part in an ‘options exercise’. Individuals should have received information in 2014/15 to explain what they could expect to receive in benefits if they chose to take up the option of membership for such periods of service, what they would have to pay in contributions and the steps they needed to take if they wished to take up the option. This was the ‘first options exercise’. We know that at least one Authority did not fulfil its duties in this regard.

The ‘first options exercise’ only permitted service going as far back as 1 July 2000 to be taken into account for membership of the Modified Section of the NFPS. It remained legally uncertain whether previous service could be taken into account. For this reason, the Employment Tribunal claims were stayed pending resolution of that issue.

The issue was effectively resolved in another case in November 2018, meaning that service going back to the start of employment could be taken into account for the purpose of a claim under PTWR. The Home Office having accepted that the same principles should be applied to the RDS pension claims. The agreement with the Union seeks to resolve these outstanding issues in the RDS Employment Tribunal claims through a ‘second options exercise’.

Eligibility to take part in the second options exercise will apply to those with relevant RDS service which began before 6 April 2006, regardless of whether the RDS firefighter presented a claim to an Employment Tribunal or not.

The position is different for RDS firefighters with exclusively post 1 July 2000 service because the offer they would receive under the second options exercise would not include any service in excess of that which should have been included in their offer under the first options exercise. The logic pursued by the Home Office and the FRAs is that RDS firefighters in this category would be getting a chance to go back on the decision they originally took under the first options exercise. Whilst that argument has force where the first options exercise was properly carried out, it is also the case that at least some FRAs failed to carry out the first options exercise.

The Union and our legal advisors have made the argument throughout that the simplest thing to do would be to re-run the first options exercise for all RDS firefighters. We are hopeful that an agreement will be reached on this issue.

Implementation of the second options exercise will need to take place via statutory instrument amending the NFPS. The Home Office will commit to introducing the legislation ‘as soon as reasonably practicable’. The second options exercise will start as soon as reasonably practicable after the legislation comes into force, and will run for 18 months.

RDS firefighters who decided to take up the offer of membership under the second options exercise will be required to pay relevant employee contributions. Those who have already retired will have interest added to their backdated pension arrears. Those RDS firefighters who take up the offer of membership under the second options exercise who are unable to obtain tax relief through self-assessment will have the costs of purchasing past service reduced to reflect the tax relief that should have been available on their contributions.

Although the requirement to pay arrears of contributions will not be welcome, the value of the extra pension will vastly exceed the value of the contributions due. Members will be given an opportunity to pay over a reasonable period of time, and to pay any outstanding balance out of their additional pension lump sum when they retire. Members will be provided with specific detail and advice following the conclusion of current negotiations.



Cost Control Mechanism 2015 Scheme

Correcting the transitional protection discrimination for all pension schemes, not just firefighter pension schemes, according to the Government’s latest estimate will cost £17bn. The Government proposes to pass the cost of their discrimination on to members of the pension schemes. This is a matter that affects all members of the 2015 Scheme.

The cost control mechanism allows for assessing the cost of providing pensions, and adjusting members’ contributions or benefits if the cost, as assessed by the scheme actuary, diverges from the target cost by more than 2%. This 2% margin is symmetrical. If the assessed cost of the scheme is below the target cost by 2% or more, benefits must be improved or members contributions must be reduced (or a mixture of both). The cost control mechanism has always been presented as a fundamental aspect of the 2015 Scheme.

The most recent completed valuations of the 2015 schemes showed that they were considerably cheaper. In the case of the firefighters’ schemes the new scheme was 5.2% cheaper than anticipated, which would lead to an increase in the accrual rate from 1/59.7 to 1/51.2 (in fact the Scheme Advisory Board [which the FBU has a seat on] recommended a smaller improvement in the accrual rate and an improvement in early retirement reductions making it more palatable to retire before age 60).

Whilst benefits and contribution changes were being negotiated, the McCloud and Sargeant judgment was handed down. The Government “paused” the cost control mechanism, on the basis that until the final outcome of the case was known (an appeal to the Supreme Court was still pending at that time) the cost of the 2015 schemes could not be known.

The Union issued judicial review proceedings to lift the pause and, once lifted, to require the improvements outlined above to be implemented. The detail of the case is complex, but it comes down to: (a) what costs the cost control mechanism measures (b) that the cost of correcting the discrimination is mainly related to the pre-2015 schemes – they have more members than the Government expected because a lot of members did not in fact transfer even if the Government thought that they did. The proceedings are now stayed. They were issued when the cost control mechanism was paused.

The pause has now been lifted, with the Government saying that they will try to pass the cost on to 2015 Scheme members through the cost control process. The way they are doing this is by not initiating improvements in benefits or a reduction in contributions for 2015 Scheme members; they want to use the overall savings in the remedy calculation.

Therefore, the Government are trying to use financial improvements that should rightfully provide improvements in benefits or reduction in contributions to our members to rectify the cost of the Governments discrimination.

The FBU have been clear to all parties though, that the cost of rectifying the Government’s discrimination within the 2015 Scheme transitional protection arrangements must not be passed on to scheme members, but that the improved benefits and/or reduced contributions, as a result of the most recent valuations, must be passed on to scheme members.

The Executive Council recently considered this matter in detail and also considered the legal advice as to the next steps the Union could take. It would be unwise to report that discussion and the decision of the Executive Council as to the legal route to be followed, but members should rest assured that this matter will be pursued through legal channels.

In that vein, I am sure that members will appreciate that for the union to discuss the matters contained within this circular in more detail in an open forum and/or outline the present position in negotiations and/or detail our legal strategy would seriously jeopardise any progress made by the union on these issues. As members can see the Union continues to fight for what rightfully belongs to our members. We are close to concluding negotiations on a number of key pension’s issues.

The Fire Brigades Union remains the only Union fighting these issues for firefighters. There are of course other pensions related matters not reported within this update. The Union continues to fight for resolution of all of those issues, they will be the subject of further updates when it is appropriate to report them.



Yours in unity.



MARK ROWE

National Officer


https://www.fbu.org.uk/circulars/2021hoc...ons-update]]> https://www.uk-fire.net/forum2/showthread.php?tid=29100 Tue, 20 Jul 2021 15:45:15 +0000 brumble49]]> https://www.uk-fire.net/forum2/showthread.php?tid=29100 Circular: 2021HOC0375MR
Dear Brother/Sister,

Pensions: Update Immediate Detriment High Court Claims Summary Judgement Hearing Date

The Fire Brigades Union issued legal proceedings in the High Court which were served 3 March 2021 in order to force Fire and Rescue Authorities (FRAs) to pay our retired members the pension that they are entitled to, the pension that they earned serving their communities.

These proceedings were served on behalf of an initial three test claimants who have already retired and who are receiving a smaller pension than that which they should be receiving – examples of what have been referred to as the ‘immediate detriment’ cases. The FBU believe that success on behalf of these initial three test claimants will set a precedent for the treatment of hundreds of other retired FBU members currently being denied their correct pension and for those approaching retirement.

The FBU has been forced to issue these High Court proceedings due to the inaction of employers (FRAs) in addressing these immediate detriment cases. Following the most recent Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) judgment, the employers have no possible defence for their inaction. They have known since 2016 that they would have to address these cases for our members who have already retired and who are already losing money. The FBU has taken this action because even though the courts have told the employers that they don’t have to wait to pay our members what they are owed most employers have indicated that they will still await further government guidance from the Treasury and the tax authorities. No further guidance is required as the courts have made it plain what they must do.

The defence of the first and second respondents and the FBU response to their defence was detailed in All Members Circular: 2021HOC0217MR

The FBU have applied for a summary judgement, the summary judgement application hearing date is 20th or 21st October 2021

A summary judgment is an application that can be brought if one party believes that it has an overwhelmingly strong case. Essentially, a party can obtain summary judgment if it is able to clearly demonstrate that its opponent has no real prospect of succeeding in the litigation, the FBU believe that the respondents have no realistic defence. This is the quickest way to resolve this matter for our members.

The FBU has entered into dialogue in an attempt to resolve the immediate detriment claims without the requirement for legal action. This route was suggested by the employers and a number of meetings have been held. The Union has been clear that the summary judgement hearing date is the deadline date for these talks with the employers and their representatives to conclude by. We are seeking to resolve the immediate detriment cases within that timeframe. There are many issues that are being discussed during these without prejudice discussions and the FBU believe that they can be resolved, we have already reached preliminary agreement on several of the issues and continue dialogue on the others.

Yours in unity,

MARK ROWE
National Officer

https://www.fbu.org.uk/circular/2021hoc0...-judgement]]> Circular: 2021HOC0375MR
Dear Brother/Sister,

Pensions: Update Immediate Detriment High Court Claims Summary Judgement Hearing Date

The Fire Brigades Union issued legal proceedings in the High Court which were served 3 March 2021 in order to force Fire and Rescue Authorities (FRAs) to pay our retired members the pension that they are entitled to, the pension that they earned serving their communities.

These proceedings were served on behalf of an initial three test claimants who have already retired and who are receiving a smaller pension than that which they should be receiving – examples of what have been referred to as the ‘immediate detriment’ cases. The FBU believe that success on behalf of these initial three test claimants will set a precedent for the treatment of hundreds of other retired FBU members currently being denied their correct pension and for those approaching retirement.

The FBU has been forced to issue these High Court proceedings due to the inaction of employers (FRAs) in addressing these immediate detriment cases. Following the most recent Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) judgment, the employers have no possible defence for their inaction. They have known since 2016 that they would have to address these cases for our members who have already retired and who are already losing money. The FBU has taken this action because even though the courts have told the employers that they don’t have to wait to pay our members what they are owed most employers have indicated that they will still await further government guidance from the Treasury and the tax authorities. No further guidance is required as the courts have made it plain what they must do.

The defence of the first and second respondents and the FBU response to their defence was detailed in All Members Circular: 2021HOC0217MR

The FBU have applied for a summary judgement, the summary judgement application hearing date is 20th or 21st October 2021

A summary judgment is an application that can be brought if one party believes that it has an overwhelmingly strong case. Essentially, a party can obtain summary judgment if it is able to clearly demonstrate that its opponent has no real prospect of succeeding in the litigation, the FBU believe that the respondents have no realistic defence. This is the quickest way to resolve this matter for our members.

The FBU has entered into dialogue in an attempt to resolve the immediate detriment claims without the requirement for legal action. This route was suggested by the employers and a number of meetings have been held. The Union has been clear that the summary judgement hearing date is the deadline date for these talks with the employers and their representatives to conclude by. We are seeking to resolve the immediate detriment cases within that timeframe. There are many issues that are being discussed during these without prejudice discussions and the FBU believe that they can be resolved, we have already reached preliminary agreement on several of the issues and continue dialogue on the others.

Yours in unity,

MARK ROWE
National Officer

https://www.fbu.org.uk/circular/2021hoc0...-judgement]]> https://www.uk-fire.net/forum2/showthread.php?tid=29079 Thu, 17 Jun 2021 20:57:41 +0000 Nightstaffer]]> https://www.uk-fire.net/forum2/showthread.php?tid=29079 Word has reached me from a reliable source that there may be a claim for underpayment of pensions for periods of acting up.

my info is a bit scant but it’s along the lines of that when acting up you paid superann but this was not reflected in your final pension upon retirement.


can anyone put some flesh on the bones please ?
Thank you]]> Word has reached me from a reliable source that there may be a claim for underpayment of pensions for periods of acting up.

my info is a bit scant but it’s along the lines of that when acting up you paid superann but this was not reflected in your final pension upon retirement.


can anyone put some flesh on the bones please ?
Thank you]]> https://www.uk-fire.net/forum2/showthread.php?tid=29078 Sun, 13 Jun 2021 06:00:25 +0000 brumble49]]> https://www.uk-fire.net/forum2/showthread.php?tid=29078 Circular: 2021HOC0300MR


Dear Brother/Sister,

Home Office Guidance On Treatment Of Immediate Detriment Cases

The Home office has, at the request of the Fire Brigades Union and the Firefighters’ Pensions (England) Scheme Advisory Board, provided the attached informal guidance to Fire and Rescue Authorities (FRAs) in England on processing ‘immediate detriment’ cases. This informal advice is provided by the Home Office in advance of legislating to remove the age discrimination as found in the McCloud/Sargeant Employment Tribunal litigation.

This informal advice does not deal with those members who have already retired and who have suffered immediate detriment.

The guidance applies only to unprotected and taper protected members of the reformed schemes. The guidance does not apply to protected scheme members, whose benefits will be received from the legacy scheme.

FRAs have the power to calculate and pay pension entitlements for these members under their legacy schemes, through the application of section 61 of the Equality Act 2010. That provision means that these individuals have the right to be treated as though they have been in service in their legacy scheme since April 2015.

The guidance details at section 3 how those immediate detriment cases defined above should be dealt with.



3.0 What are ‘Immediate Detriment’ cases?



3.1 This guidance aims to deal with cases where the benefits are not yet in payment as these are less complicated to deal with (compared to where benefits are already in payment).



3.2 For the purposes of this guidance, the term ‘immediate detriment’ applies only to individuals who were members or eligible to be members of a legacy scheme immediately prior to 1 April 2012, and have a period of service after 31 March 2015 during which they were members of a legacy or reformed scheme, where those periods of service are continuous including those with a qualifying break in service of less than 5 years (this is irrespective of whether they have submitted a legal claim or not)and who:

1. become eligible to retire (for any reason, including ill health) and draw their pension and want to have all their benefits paid from their legacy scheme (i.e. do not accept 2015 scheme benefits); OR
   
2. do not qualify for lower-tier (and therefore higher-tier) ill-health pension under the single pot Ill-Health Retirement (IHR) arrangement, and are therefore left without a pension in payment BUT would be eligible under the IHR arrangements in their legacy scheme.
   

3.3 Any scheme members that fall within either of the two categories above can have their pensions calculated and put into payment. As set out above, FRAs have the power to calculate and pay pension entitlements for these members under their legacy schemes, through the application of section 61 of the Equality Act 2010. That provision means that these individuals have the right to be treated as though they have been in service in their legacy scheme since April 2015, if that is what they want and they inform the scheme of this.



Members meeting the criteria set out in 3.2 should be offered the opportunity to take all their pension benefits accrued during the remedy period under their legacy pension scheme, rather than under the 2015 Scheme.

In order to provide members this choice, FRAs will need to present two sets of pension entitlement quotes to each qualifying scheme member. Each quote must set out the pension benefits that the member would receive under each choice, to include: recurring annual pension (before and after commutation), commutation retirement lump sum entitlement, employee contributions owed/refunds due etc.

It is important to note that this guidance was issued by the Home Office, there are areas of the guidance that the Fire Brigades Union do not agree with. We will continue with our legal action in relation to the High Court test cases for retired members who have suffered immediate detriment.

What is clear is that the guidance to FRAs states that those members due to retire should be able to do so on their legacy scheme if that is their choice.

The guidance was prepared by the Home Office in consultation with the Treasury, and is designed to apply to the English firefighters’ schemes. However, the scheme provisions of the Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and English schemes are substantively identical, as are the issues surrounding the processing of immediate detriment claims.

Yours in unity,

MARK ROWE
National Officer


https://www.fbu.org.uk/circular/2021hoc0...ment-cases]]> Circular: 2021HOC0300MR


Dear Brother/Sister,

Home Office Guidance On Treatment Of Immediate Detriment Cases

The Home office has, at the request of the Fire Brigades Union and the Firefighters’ Pensions (England) Scheme Advisory Board, provided the attached informal guidance to Fire and Rescue Authorities (FRAs) in England on processing ‘immediate detriment’ cases. This informal advice is provided by the Home Office in advance of legislating to remove the age discrimination as found in the McCloud/Sargeant Employment Tribunal litigation.

This informal advice does not deal with those members who have already retired and who have suffered immediate detriment.

The guidance applies only to unprotected and taper protected members of the reformed schemes. The guidance does not apply to protected scheme members, whose benefits will be received from the legacy scheme.

FRAs have the power to calculate and pay pension entitlements for these members under their legacy schemes, through the application of section 61 of the Equality Act 2010. That provision means that these individuals have the right to be treated as though they have been in service in their legacy scheme since April 2015.

The guidance details at section 3 how those immediate detriment cases defined above should be dealt with.



3.0 What are ‘Immediate Detriment’ cases?



3.1 This guidance aims to deal with cases where the benefits are not yet in payment as these are less complicated to deal with (compared to where benefits are already in payment).



3.2 For the purposes of this guidance, the term ‘immediate detriment’ applies only to individuals who were members or eligible to be members of a legacy scheme immediately prior to 1 April 2012, and have a period of service after 31 March 2015 during which they were members of a legacy or reformed scheme, where those periods of service are continuous including those with a qualifying break in service of less than 5 years (this is irrespective of whether they have submitted a legal claim or not)and who:

1. become eligible to retire (for any reason, including ill health) and draw their pension and want to have all their benefits paid from their legacy scheme (i.e. do not accept 2015 scheme benefits); OR
   
2. do not qualify for lower-tier (and therefore higher-tier) ill-health pension under the single pot Ill-Health Retirement (IHR) arrangement, and are therefore left without a pension in payment BUT would be eligible under the IHR arrangements in their legacy scheme.
   

3.3 Any scheme members that fall within either of the two categories above can have their pensions calculated and put into payment. As set out above, FRAs have the power to calculate and pay pension entitlements for these members under their legacy schemes, through the application of section 61 of the Equality Act 2010. That provision means that these individuals have the right to be treated as though they have been in service in their legacy scheme since April 2015, if that is what they want and they inform the scheme of this.



Members meeting the criteria set out in 3.2 should be offered the opportunity to take all their pension benefits accrued during the remedy period under their legacy pension scheme, rather than under the 2015 Scheme.

In order to provide members this choice, FRAs will need to present two sets of pension entitlement quotes to each qualifying scheme member. Each quote must set out the pension benefits that the member would receive under each choice, to include: recurring annual pension (before and after commutation), commutation retirement lump sum entitlement, employee contributions owed/refunds due etc.

It is important to note that this guidance was issued by the Home Office, there are areas of the guidance that the Fire Brigades Union do not agree with. We will continue with our legal action in relation to the High Court test cases for retired members who have suffered immediate detriment.

What is clear is that the guidance to FRAs states that those members due to retire should be able to do so on their legacy scheme if that is their choice.

The guidance was prepared by the Home Office in consultation with the Treasury, and is designed to apply to the English firefighters’ schemes. However, the scheme provisions of the Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and English schemes are substantively identical, as are the issues surrounding the processing of immediate detriment claims.

Yours in unity,

MARK ROWE
National Officer


https://www.fbu.org.uk/circular/2021hoc0...ment-cases]]> https://www.uk-fire.net/forum2/showthread.php?tid=29059 Wed, 12 May 2021 14:56:35 +0000 ABee]]> https://www.uk-fire.net/forum2/showthread.php?tid=29059
Abatement of pension is the withdrawal or reduction in pension where the pensioner is re-employed anywhere in local government.

Some questions

1) Does anyone know what the definition of 'local government' means in relation to abatement. I assume it means a country council or unitary authority who are paying the pension and new salary if reemployed? Or does it mean borough councils, parish councils or local authority quangos ?

2) Can I confirm this abatement rule does NOT apply for central Govt jobs??

3) Whose responsibility is it to declare reemployment? Mine or my employer or HMRC??

Thanks]]>
Abatement of pension is the withdrawal or reduction in pension where the pensioner is re-employed anywhere in local government.

Some questions

1) Does anyone know what the definition of 'local government' means in relation to abatement. I assume it means a country council or unitary authority who are paying the pension and new salary if reemployed? Or does it mean borough councils, parish councils or local authority quangos ?

2) Can I confirm this abatement rule does NOT apply for central Govt jobs??

3) Whose responsibility is it to declare reemployment? Mine or my employer or HMRC??

Thanks]]> https://www.uk-fire.net/forum2/showthread.php?tid=28993 Tue, 05 Jan 2021 10:01:58 +0000 Davie s]]> https://www.uk-fire.net/forum2/showthread.php?tid=28993 https://www.uk-fire.net/forum2/showthread.php?tid=28970 Tue, 24 Nov 2020 20:58:07 +0000 1973]]> https://www.uk-fire.net/forum2/showthread.php?tid=28970 https://www.express.co.uk/finance/person...97okCIyN6g

State pension: Public sector workers may get bumper payout thanks to new 'landmark' ruling
STATE pension payments can vary, depending on when a person reaches state pension age, with "basic" and "new" payments being available. Public sector workers could be facing a payout thanks to a new court ruling on a little known process called "contracting out".
By CONNOR COOMBE-WHITLOCK
PUBLISHED: 07:27, Tue, Nov 24, 2020 | UPDATED: 10:02, Tue, Nov 24, 2020



For those who would have qualified for basic and/or additional state pensions, it may have been possible to “contract out” of the additional state pension entirely. Some people may have been able to contract out of the additional state pension if their employer(s) ran a contracted-out pension scheme.

• 
  State pension: Public sector workers may get bumper payout thanks to new 'landmark' ruling.
  

• 
  Pension scheme: New ruling may see state pensioners get 'thousands'
  

This scheme allowed both workers and employers to pay National Insurance at a lower rate.

As such, contracted-out members did not contribute to the additional state pension and instead built up workplace pension schemes.

According to the government, the extra pension from a contracted-out pension scheme is usually the same, or more than, the additional state pension should the person involved not have contracted-out.

Currently, retirees can check if they were contracted-out by checking their old payslips or contacting their pension providers.





Some state pensioners may soon get thousands of pounds (Image: GETTY)
Should it prove difficult to find these details, the government offers a pension tracing service which can help people find their pension providers’ contact details.

Despite the government’s efforts to make the pension system as fair and smooth as possible, the contracting-out system has proven controversial and may not have worked as intended for some people.

A recent court ruling (on the case between Lloyds Banking Group Pensions Trustees Limited and Lloyds Bank PLC, HBOS PLC, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and Ivan Walker) determined that rulings on historical gender equalisation from 2018 also extends to those who transferred their pensions after 1990.

• 
  
• 
  
  

This could have huge ramifications and may lead to revaluations which could result in many retirees receiving boosted payments worth thousands.

As Nigel Green, the chief executive and founder of deVere Group, explained: “This landmark ruling means up to a million savers are now entitled to have their payments recalculated.

“The pension top-ups for some savers will run to several tens of thousands of pounds.”

He continued: “This will be an expensive blow and an administrative nightmare for many businesses who will now need to trawl decades of data and then shell out this money to these pension holders.

• 
  

“But all those who have transferred their retirement nest eggs must demand the additional money that is rightfully theirs as soon as possible.”

These changes may be more likely to affect those who worked in the public sector, as the government details people are more likely to have been contracted-out if they worked in:

• The NHS
  
• local councils
  
• fire services
  
• the civil service
  
• teaching
  
• police forces
  
• the armed forces
  
• 
  
  
• 
  
  

State pension payments will largely be dependent on when a person reached state pension age as the government changed the retirement system in 2016.

Most people will now qualify for the new state pension going forward but some people will receive the basic state pension if they reached their retirement age before a certain date.

Men who were born before April 6 1951, or women who were born before April 6 1953 would have received the basic state pension when they reached their retirement age.

Currently, the full basic state pension is £134.25 per week, which requires 30 years of National Insurance contributions.]]> https://www.express.co.uk/finance/person...97okCIyN6g

State pension: Public sector workers may get bumper payout thanks to new 'landmark' ruling
STATE pension payments can vary, depending on when a person reaches state pension age, with "basic" and "new" payments being available. Public sector workers could be facing a payout thanks to a new court ruling on a little known process called "contracting out".
By CONNOR COOMBE-WHITLOCK
PUBLISHED: 07:27, Tue, Nov 24, 2020 | UPDATED: 10:02, Tue, Nov 24, 2020



For those who would have qualified for basic and/or additional state pensions, it may have been possible to “contract out” of the additional state pension entirely. Some people may have been able to contract out of the additional state pension if their employer(s) ran a contracted-out pension scheme.

• 
  State pension: Public sector workers may get bumper payout thanks to new 'landmark' ruling.
  

• 
  Pension scheme: New ruling may see state pensioners get 'thousands'
  

This scheme allowed both workers and employers to pay National Insurance at a lower rate.

As such, contracted-out members did not contribute to the additional state pension and instead built up workplace pension schemes.

According to the government, the extra pension from a contracted-out pension scheme is usually the same, or more than, the additional state pension should the person involved not have contracted-out.

Currently, retirees can check if they were contracted-out by checking their old payslips or contacting their pension providers.





Some state pensioners may soon get thousands of pounds (Image: GETTY)
Should it prove difficult to find these details, the government offers a pension tracing service which can help people find their pension providers’ contact details.

Despite the government’s efforts to make the pension system as fair and smooth as possible, the contracting-out system has proven controversial and may not have worked as intended for some people.

A recent court ruling (on the case between Lloyds Banking Group Pensions Trustees Limited and Lloyds Bank PLC, HBOS PLC, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and Ivan Walker) determined that rulings on historical gender equalisation from 2018 also extends to those who transferred their pensions after 1990.

• 
  
• 
  
  

This could have huge ramifications and may lead to revaluations which could result in many retirees receiving boosted payments worth thousands.

As Nigel Green, the chief executive and founder of deVere Group, explained: “This landmark ruling means up to a million savers are now entitled to have their payments recalculated.

“The pension top-ups for some savers will run to several tens of thousands of pounds.”

He continued: “This will be an expensive blow and an administrative nightmare for many businesses who will now need to trawl decades of data and then shell out this money to these pension holders.

• 
  

“But all those who have transferred their retirement nest eggs must demand the additional money that is rightfully theirs as soon as possible.”

These changes may be more likely to affect those who worked in the public sector, as the government details people are more likely to have been contracted-out if they worked in:

• The NHS
  
• local councils
  
• fire services
  
• the civil service
  
• teaching
  
• police forces
  
• the armed forces
  
• 
  
  
• 
  
  

State pension payments will largely be dependent on when a person reached state pension age as the government changed the retirement system in 2016.

Most people will now qualify for the new state pension going forward but some people will receive the basic state pension if they reached their retirement age before a certain date.

Men who were born before April 6 1951, or women who were born before April 6 1953 would have received the basic state pension when they reached their retirement age.

Currently, the full basic state pension is £134.25 per week, which requires 30 years of National Insurance contributions.]]>