This Volume at a Glance :

• The Pensions Regulator;

•  Disabled FSV~RRB a Challenges TPR to Engage;

• Commutation Saga  ;

• Loss of Amenity and Interest Rates;

• Statute to Steal or the so called ‘18-20 Club’;

•  Further media comment;

•  The FBU Representation- OOT Members;

The Pensions Regulator (TPR) has told public sector schemes to improve their governance standards after research found just 28% had a plan to comply with recent reforms.

The watchdog, which took on responsibility for regulating public sector schemes including the Fire Service Schemes in April 2015, said 97% of those surveyed had a high awareness of the changes, and 87% reported a good understanding of them.

Well TPR could not possibly have been looking at the Fire Service Pension Schemes in general or the LFRS in particular, could it?

Nine out of ten schemes had established a pensions board, a key requirement of the Public Service Pensions Act 2013.

But staffed by especially selected  moronic councillors of the Scheme manager’s choice who can quite easily be manipulated.

But the research found schemes had been slow to address key administration and governance tasks, and less than half had had reviewed arrangements against TPR's code of practice which was published in January 2015.

Described as diplomat, thought leader, and now crime fighter Andrew Warwick-Thompson will find plenty of pension crime to fight and practice on at the LFRS.

TPR executive director Andrew Warwick-Thompson said: "While there has been some encouraging progress, our research reveals a concerning picture of some public service schemes failing to engage fully with the requirements on governance and administration.

The likes of Warren(LFRS) and Lister (LCC-YPS) are not failing to ‘engage’ they are simply laughing at such a concept. The LFRS and its contractor the LCC YPS makes its own laws up as they go along.

"We recognise that the reforms are significant and those involved with public service schemes face complex and challenging conditions. However, schemes must comply with the law to ensure that the right benefits are paid to the right person at the right time."

Now that is the kind of tough talk that is music to the ears of the Bugler but let us see if talking tough translates in firm punitive action against the LFRS as an example ‘pour encourager les autres’.

TPR surveyed half of public sector schemes covering 85% of scheme members in the summer.

It found that, on the whole, public service schemes were progressing well in terms of understanding the new requirements and setting up processes.

Says who on the ground – the pensioners?

Some 78% had developed policies to help pension board members fully understand
their duties, 87% had a conflicts policy, and 87% had procedures in place to ensure
information about the board was published and kept up to date.

This is of course all simply window dressing nonsense the acid test is seeing it actually working…

Approximately three quarters had processes for risk management and data monitoring in place and almost all had a procedure for monitoring contributions.

But schemes scored less well on taking action in key governance and administration areas and are still in the early stages of assessing themselves against the requirements in TPR's code.

Just 28% had a plan in place and were addressing key issues to ensure compliance with the new requirements, and only 44% had reviewed their scheme against the code.

„Only 45% of schemes had measured themselves against the regulator's record-keeping regulations, and just 27% had undertaken a data cleanse.

While 76% of schemes had procedures in place to manage risk, and 82% reported having a risk register, only 56% said they assessed risks either quarterly or monthly.

Warwick-Thompson said: "We expect all schemes to assess themselves against the legal requirements and the standards set out in our code, and to take action to address any gaps.

"We are supporting schemes to help them understand and embed the code. We have produced specific guidance through online education tools and e-learning modules, and we'll also be launching a self-assessment tool in the new year."

And he should have chanted the mantra of the TPR  CEO Lesley Titcomb by stating that if these Scheme managers do not get the civilised message then a good kicking with punitive fines is in order.

So enough of the sabre rattling let us see if his and Ms. Titcomb’s promises translate into firm action and to do that they must use  the example case of FSV~RRB which has been placed before them recently and which they have said will be investigated.

Disabled FSV~RRB has now placed his formal Complaint before TPR and other government agencies and TPR have confirmed that they will investigate his Complaint and one hopes their findings and the punitive action they intend to take against the LFRS/LCC~YPS is reported back to him both promptly and in transparent detail because transparency will be expected in this public matter affecting a public pension scheme.

A deplorable issue which will be the subject of much scrutiny by Firefighters both present and past if confidence is to be created and inspired by the appropriate actions of TPR using this as a test case and an indicator for all FSVs/Firefighters.

The FSVs/Firefighters will expect and accept  nothing less than the Justice they have long been deliberately denied.

To see Disabled FSV~RRB response to the Clerk to the Lancashire CFA Go Here.

This Commutation saga stumbles to a conclusion and the following correspondence(amended slightly for readability purposes) will surely give some idea of how ‘enthusiastic’ this government, its departments, and its agents the Fire Authorities are to bring it to a prompt and decent conclusion. Appended are typical responses to  FSVs enquiries…

“Thank you for your recent enquiry regarding the revised Commutation Factors for those who retired in receipt of a pension from the 1992 scheme between 1st December 2001 and 21st August 2006 inclusive.

The final version of the calculator has been released by GAD. We are currently working through the Guidance that have been issued in order for us to calculate the payments due to members who’s pension became payable between the above dates.

We have been instructed by GAD that completed calculation results should be sent to them before any payments are made so they can check that different computer systems do not alter the calculations functionality. Also they have informed us that there will be a need for individuals to sign a discharge before payment can be made which GAD will be providing further advice on in due course.

Unfortunately we are still not in a position to supply you with any figures or any time frame when payments will be made.

We are sorry we cannot be of any further assistance at present.

+++++++++++++++

This at the 1^st December 2015:

+++++++++++++++

“Bit of a long post this but I have copied in full, the e-mails I have had with LPEFA and Government Actuaries Department (GAD) ref the pension entitlement that some of us are still waiting for following the Pensions Ombudsman’s determination on persons pensions who retired in the early 2000's.  

I, along with others, have been waiting patiently for a cheque to come in the post.

Getting a bit fed up with waiting for what is our entitlement I contacted London Pensions Fund Authority on 11 November 2015 (11 years to the day after my retirement – how time fly's!).”.
 

“I retired in 2004 and understand that following the test case against the Government Actuary’s Department (GAD) I should be entitled to an enhanced payment on top of the lump sum that I received.
I understand that you are very short staffed and have several of these claims to investigate so I have avoided contacting you in the past as I know that you will work through these claims when it is possible so to do.
However could you please confirm that I am on your list and any other information that you can give me will be appreciated e.g. timescales, amounts etc.".

I received a reply from LPFA a few days later
 

“Dear Mr XXXX,
Thank you for your recent enquiry regarding the revised Commutation Factors for those who retired in receipt of a pension from the 1992 scheme between 1st December 2001 and 21st August 2006 inclusive.
GAD recently requested details from each authority regarding the costs and number of members involved which was supplied to them. We are still waiting for GAD to send us the discharge form they require members to complete and they have instructed us not to pay any Lump Sums until they have supplied the Fire Authorities with the relevant funds.
Unfortunately, at present we are still unable to confirm when the form will be available to send to members or when payment will be made.
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact us.
Yours sincerely
Joy Ofili
Acting Senior Pensions Administrator.”.

I therefore sent an immediate e-mail to GAD, as follows:
 

“I understand from the London Fire Brigade Pensions Department (see e-mail below) that they are unable to pay the underpaid pension amounts as they are “still waiting for GAD to send us the discharge form they require members to complete and they have instructed us not to pay any Lump Sums until they have supplied the Fire Authorities with the relevant funds”.
A number of retired Firefighters have taken to social media speculating on dates etc., but I would rather deal in facts so can you please give me some information on anticipated timescales,
and I received the following reply that contradicted the information I had just received from LPFA:”.
 

“Dear Mr XXXXX,
Thank you for your email.
To clarify, GAD are not responsible for providing funding or any discharge forms to the Fire Authorities (contrary to the email you have received from the administrator on behalf of the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority). This is being dealt with by other Government departments and we understand that progress has been made on these issues since you received your email below. Therefore, please contact your administrator for an update on the expected timescales, as they are best placed to inform you as to how your case is progressing.
We appreciate your patience while these issues are being finalised.”.

It's all right appreciating my patience, thought I, but life is cracking on and I fancy receiving this entitlement before I'm too old to enjoy it! So a further e-mail to LPEFA as follows:
 

“Following my e-mail to you dated 11 November 2015 and your reply of the 16 November 2015 (both below) I wrote to GAD and have now received their reply (also below).
You will note that they “are not responsible for providing funding or any discharge forms to the Fire Authorities” contrary to the email I received from you. They go on to say that “this is being dealt with by other Government departments and we understand that progress has been made on these issues”.
They have suggested that I “contact your administrator for an update on the expected timescales, as they are best placed to inform you as to how your case is progressing.”
In view of the above can you please give me the latest information for my benefit and the benefit of others who are in a similar position?
I am still awaiting a reply to this latest e-mail but I will post on here just as soon as it is received…”.

+++++++++++++++

Progress for one individual perhaps?

+++++++++++++++

Just returned home from work where an ex-Sub O from Herts Brigade works.
He this morning received a letter from LFB Pensions but signed by Herts Brigade pension office stating his Pension missed Commutation Payment had been worked out and would be paid with his March payment. Interest had been calculated to this date and Government will have released the required monies to facilitate payment on 31March 2016.
Just as a guide as some will have higher or lower payments due according to actual retirement date and rank: He joined March 1973 retired March 2003 age 55 as a Sub O. His payout due just over £6000.00 plus interest which varies with each year. Total for him a shade under £10.000.00. He had worked out due to the wage rise over the years 2003-2006 that those retiring within these dates will get proportionally more than him.
Lets hope for our letters soon .
I will try and get a copy of his letter to post if he is O.K with it being posted.

Merry Christmas to all around this mess table….XXXX.

MB Thanks to original authors…

 It seems that the interest on this overdue commutation is being calculated per year on the Bank base rate. If this is confirmed then of course once more this government will be short changing these individuals because it has failed to address their ‘loss of amenity’.

In other words what they would/could have done with their commutation if had been paid at the correct rate at the time it was due or requested.

If their ‘loss of amentity’  was addressed by the government and H.M.Treasury paying compound interest, as they should on a self enrichment debt, then this correct method of calculation would have had a major impact on the potential amounts going to be paid out to individuals. In other words hypothetically because it is compound interest the actual monies due may well be three fold or more in actual value.

This will only ever be illuminated by one recipient working out and publishing their own figures of what they ought to have been paid out by applying compound interest to their ‘loss of amenity’ commutation.

If the FBU have agreed to this application of annual base Bank rate of interest being applied in restitution then they have substantially short changed their members and those affected.

If they have not agreed to this type of interest being applied then they must seek both legal and accountancy advice and return to the negotiating table without further delay and seek the application of the correct interest rate for the benefit of their membership and especially for those directly affected…

“PENSIONS: FBU VICTORY FOR FIREFIGHTERS WHO JOINED FPS AGED 18-20
You will be aware that the FBU lodged a legal challenge in relation to firefighters who joined the 1992 Firefighters’ Pension Scheme (FPS) aged 18-20.
Firefighters who joined the 1992 FPS aged 18-20 have previously had to contribute for up to 32 years to receive a 30 year pension at the earliest age of 50. This is because the FPS unlike many other schemes has an accrual cap of 30 years reckonable service i.e. no more pension can be accrued after thirty years contributions.
This issue has been of concern for many years, particularly among those members affected, that is those who joined the Service and pension scheme before the age of 20. As a result the FBU challenged this legally with a test case in a specific hearing that was due to take place this week, starting 7 December 2015.
Very late in the process, correspondence from the Department for Communities and Local Government has confirmed that the Secretary of State will now allow members under the age of 50 who have accrued 30 years’ service to take a contributions holiday from the time they attain 30 years’ reckonable service until they reach age 50. In other words they have conceded our case.
The rules of the 1992 FPS will now be amended to allow an affected member (i.e. one who joined before the age of 20) upon reaching 50, to be able to choose to:
• Retire with a pension.
• Continue employment and recommence payment of contributions (the accrual cap remains in place with a maximum thirty years pension).
• Or continue employment without paying contributions thereby electing to defer their pension.
The proposal is to be applied retrospectively to 1 December 2006 so that:
• If a firefighter has already paid contributions in to the FPS after that date;
• And has already accrued 30 years’ pensionable service;
• And was under the age of 50;
He/she will get a refund of contributions for that period.
This refund will include a payment in relation to interest.
The date of 1 December 2006 relates to the date when discrimination of this type became unlawful. The FBU is also examining other potential challenges associated with this particular age discrimination issue.
FBU members will recognise that this is another significant legal victory following on from the successful commutation challenge of May 2015. Once again the FBU is the only organisation within the Fire Service that has taken up a challenge on behalf of firefighters.
Best wishes.
Yours fraternally,
MATT WRACK
GENERAL SECRETARY”.

 “Many firefighters are set to receive thousands of pounds in compensation as the government admits members of the '18-20 club’ were short changed and missing two years’ worth of pension contributions, following a successful legal challenge by the FBU.

The '18-20 club' describes a number of members who joined the 1992 Firefighters Pensions Scheme between the ages of 18-20 and ended up paying into the scheme for up to 32 years, only to receive a 30 year pension on retirement. This was because, unlike many other pension plans, the scheme had an accrual cap of 30 years.

Now those firefighters affected are set to be compensated after the Department for Communities and Local Government conceded defeat before the start of a test case hearing, which was due to begin 7 December 2015.

The concession means that serving firefighters who have accrued 30 years’ service will not have to pay any further pension contributions until they reach the age of 50 – a ‘contributions holiday’ if you will. It also means that firefighters who paid these additional contributions since 1 December 2006 and who have since retired will be paid back the contributions they made to their pension at age 48 and 49, plus interest.

Matt Wrack, FBU general secretary, said: “This is a huge victory for the union and for those firefighters who were denied up to two years’ worth of a pension they had made contributions on. As we approach Christmas I know this will be welcome news for many throughout the UK. None of this would have been possible without a strong trade union that fights for its members, this was a case brought solely by the FBU on behalf of its members.”

Regrettably the FBU continue to only represent those in service consistently failing to represent those Out of Trade Members whose subscriptions they take but regularly fail to represent.

Shortly the Bugler will carry an esposé  on the FBU and its major failure of representation in Lancashire and nationally for OOT members in an affair involving Thompsons Solicitors and its failure of Duty of Care in a case which became known as the ‘Zumba Dancer’ directly involving Mr. Starbuck the National Pension ‘officer’.

Thompsons Solicitors are also not as omnipotent as both they and the FBU would have us all believe. Let the records and correspondence speak for themselves…