• Required reading before Asking Pension Questions;

• Errors and Certainties;

• An FSV’s expectations in resolution;

• LFRS/LCC PS – Another  bizarre pension ‘management’ philosophy;

• Asking Pension Questions – The ‘Tools’;

When a pension query arises whether large or small it is essential to move forward armed with a basic working knowledge of an FSV’s pension(s) which is best acquired by firstly reading the Chapter entitled ‘The Enacted Law-Reading and Understanding’ and then in conjunction  by studying the FSV’s own discharge documentation.

This Chapter was written in plain English as a prelude to consulting the actual law with the intention of demystifying the whole process because self-evident pension ignorance will be exploited by Fire Authority ‘experts’ to the disadvantage of those asking the questions.

There are certainties in the matter of Fire Service Pensions.

Fire Service Veterans can be certain that their Fire Authority do not see it as their role to put in place robust systems which monthly, annually, and regularly monitor Taxpayers’ and Pension Scheme Members’ expenditure by ensuring the correct payment of the correct pension(s) to a FSV.

FSVs can be certain that their Fire Authority will err in both underpayments and overpayments and in all probability, in either case, be unaware that it has done so. Such is the endemic and prevailing poor state of pension administration with its poorly qualified staff within the UK Fire Service.

FSVs can be certain that errors are only ever brought to the attention of their pension provider FRAuthorities by vigilant and honest FSVs who promptly ignore their communications, so it is absolutely critical to keep your own contemporaneous records .

FSVs can be certain that their FRAuthorities will never contact them to state that it has discovered it has made a mistake in calculating their pension(s).

In the unlikely event it does it will not provide a detailed honest explanation who was responsible and how this error occurred; was identified; how they have rectified it; how in honest detail they will prevent this from happening again; and what immediate restitution it will make to the FSV, which must always include compound interest compensation over the time span of the error.

Fire Service Veterans can be certain that their FRS IF it discovers its own error of underpayment which is NOT in its favour will take covert action to perpetually hide this error in a calculated breach of trust  and will never inform the affected FSV that this error remains in existence and thus in deceit it will enrich itself in perpetuity to the detriment of the FSV.

FSVs can be certain that their FRS’s knee jerk reaction, when their error is brought to the light of scrutiny, an error which they failed to routinely identify, will go into

immediate denial, cover up, and stonewalling.

This expected response emanates from an all pervasive attitude of moral superiority in which their self-generated corporate philosophy insists that they are the ‘experts’ and thus they cannot possibly have erred, and if embarrassing errors have occurred, then it is entirely the fault of the FSV, who for example, has failed to inform them of his/her changed circumstances particularly in respect of State benefits therein lies the trap if FSV’s do not keep records.

Changes which are not the responsibility of, nor  driven by, the FSV but by the Government/DWP and for which the FRS have the Statutory accountability, but whom in their abysmal pension management ignorance perpetually lag behind State benefit changes which simply lends confusion and uncertainty to an issue concerning whether pension deductions actually apply to a particular FSV’s pension, or not.

Statutory responsibility for pension management rests unequivocally, entirely, and squarely with the FRS never the FSVs.

FSVs can be certain that their FRS do not see it, in pastoral care terms, as their duty to support a FSV in declining health and advancing years who may well be living alone, lacking in mobility and communications, and who may have more pressing personal welfare/health concerns which collectively mitigate against reporting the constantly changing details of their State care as it advances and its impact, if any, on their pensions.

The UK Fire Service, which deludes itself that it is the finest in the world, unlike its kindred service in other parts of the world, turns a cold, inhuman, and implacable face, on those trusting and prideful disabled FSVs who so recently devoted their entire lives to a Service they loved and who have been injured or simply worn out in the service of their communities.

Breached trust never flies on the broken wings of heartless betrayal, disloyalty, inhuman neglect, or broken political promises.

Reasonable and mature FSVs accept that errors occur in life. They have spent their working lives dealing with human errors in the public domain. However, it is how an error is investigated, confirmed or not, and dealt with, which speaks volumes about an FRS’s mature pension administrative capability.

There is a reasonable expectation that a major query, particularly one with serious financial implications for the FRS and one of such personal importance to a retired FSV that it will be dealt with promptly in complete and transparent honesty.

Transparency which in the first instance offers an immediate and confidence building face to face initial interview with a person in authority who is senior, qualified, and experienced in detailed pension management and pension law.

An initial meeting which ought to include the exchange of information including statutory rights and appeals procedures; chains of authority etc; all supported by an open helpful and sympathetic attitude during which the pension ‘expert’ establishes a dialogue of trust subsequently reinforced by rapid follow up meetings which include the unreserved sharing of the results of an initial investigation; which outlines in plain English the statute law on the issue in question; which admits an error if confirmed; and finally with an ‘all the facts on the table’ explanation proffers a complete analyses of what has actually occurred to raise the query in the first place.

It is from such perfectly reasonable expectations using simple steps of a standardised, routine, transparently honest response to a query, that trust is rebuilt and resolution ultimately occurs.

What is neither reasonable nor transparently honest is the corporate attitude exemplified by the joint approach of LFRS and (by Contract) its LCC Pensions Services contractor to their Statutory duties when challenged, or asked even the simplest of pension questions.

Clearly there is an agreed joint policy of deliberate professional stonewalling which is developed to a fine art and which by rote is now enshrined in their daily practices. 

A policy by nameless and faceless  ‘experts’ which deliberately mitigates against any and all forms of the exercise of personal democratic rights and freedoms especially under the European Human Rights Convention with regard to a FSV’s ‘possession’, his pensions.

These LCC PS ‘experts’ quite literally hide themselves in physical premises which are difficult to identify and for which no physical address is published. At one point control of all Lancashire pensions passed to BT in another ‘money saving’ scheme of CC ‘Desperate’ Driver which existed to serve his political purposes rather than his electorate.

A position later reversed by a Labour controlled Council but continuing under an LCC PS which still uses BTConnectOne email addresses and services. As usual this LCC PS has little idea what it is actually doing managerially.

Its staff under such dynamic ‘leadership’ subsist within a self-created electronic fortress in which nameless and faceless ‘experts’ exist in a self-perpetuating atmosphere of complete paranoid secrecy whilst hypocritically claiming complete transparency and honesty.

Today even MI5/6 offers a location and an insight into their taxpayer paid work, why not the LFRS/LCC PS?

What are they hiding from scrutiny?

Their professional incompetence and errors?

Not a single Contact point offers the encouragement of a simple face to face meetings; indeed the very idea is an anathema to them, and when suggested, the answer provided is that no such facility exists and one concludes even if it did, its use would be severely discouraged.

So when a serious and major issue arises with a disabled FSV’s pension how is the matter dealt with?

It seems by discussion-less edicts issued by nameless unqualified ‘experts’ who will brook no argument; offer no discourse or conversation; nor will they propose any constructive face to face  dialogue leading to resolution.

The cornerstone of this bizarre ‘managerial’ philosophy, driven by a ruthless arrogance allied with complete professional ignorance of pension law is based entirely on the legally ignorant and completely erroneous presumption that the liability for, and proof of pension payment error, rests entirely with a disabled FSV.  

Aside from the sheer nonsense of such a suggestion it must be borne in mind that a FSV has no physical access to his own pension records which might have started online in 2009, or then again might not.

Indeed should an FSV be minded to obtain a copy of all his pension records his attempts will be deliberately thwarted at every created twist and turn by the LFRS/LCC PS in complicity.

This is an iniquitous nonsense which the Bugler has already commented on and will do again later in this chapter by publishing actual examples of this great ‘game’.

Quite simply there is no burden of proof in law resting on any FSV to prove an error in any respect of his pension(s), it being for the LFRS to act in its lawful Statutory and  fiduciary capacity to ensure that a FSV is treated fairly and lawfully, and where the slightest doubt arises it being resolved entirely in the FSV’s favour.

So, in spite of callous, cold hearted, and distinctly offensive attitudes, when an error or errors are discovered and the FSV starts to ask questions about his pension; what tools (his inalienable rights) are available to him; what information paths (procedures) are there to follow; and what sympathetic assistance and resolution can he expect from the FRS?, the Information Commissioners Office(ICO); the DCLG; the Courts; European Human Rights Convention; the Pension Regulator; the Pension Ombudsman; the Pension Advisory Service (now defunct); a plethora of Ombudsmen; and politicians et al?

The answer in practice is precious little. This is a hostile environment but then Firefighters know how to operate in hostile environments with intelligence, determination, and dogged effort.

What should be the norm?

In a normal world following up a pension error ought to be a simple routine matter.

A question is raised with the FRS or its pension contractor (but copy all mail to the Fire Authority) whether via a faceless ‘Help Desk’ by vox; an email query/contact form; or as it is described these days, by snail mail (post).

Most certainly it would be extraordinary if an FSV could simply drop in and raise his queries face to face, that would be much too simple and efficient.

The question is eventually responded to; the records amended; the appropriate financial adjustments are made; and finally all is confirmed to the FSV in writing.

All very simple and routine, but rarely do such routine matters in life follow a smooth information path, and if they do, then the FSV should treasure his pension provider.

What is the Reality?

In the event that the question raised produces a situation of confirmed error(FRS’s, they say, rarely make errors and even more rarely admit them) or the errors amounts to a substantial underpayment set over time then the FSV can expect immediate resistance particularly when it means paying out against the FRS’s own error in these straitened budget times.

The Bugler has repeatedly explained why the FRS’s knee jerk reaction is to cover up its financial embarrassment so it is not necessary to repeat these facts here.

By now Readers of the Morning Bugler will also have concluded that if the FSV’s pension provider is a facsimile of Lancashire, which is the exemplar of all that is wrong in the Fire Service pension ‘industry’, then the FSV is just lucky to receive any pension, whether correct or not.

Nevertheless for the benefit of those ‘beyond the pale’ of Lancashire, we must look at the ‘tools’ with which normal questions can be asked; normal paths followed; with normal responses from a responsible and mature FRS.

The ‘Game’.

Obtaining information and answers to questions is all a ‘game’ and it is important to understand the ‘game’ rules from the outset and the appropriate set which are engaged at a given point because a matter which is important to a FSV is a deliberately time wasting defensive ‘game’ accompanied by flagrant abuse and misrepresentation of the law by those you have asked for the information.

There is only one truly outstanding UK independent organisation from which to learn the ‘rules of the games’ at an early point and that is the ‘Campaign for Freedom of Information’. This charitable society with its Campaign is supported by organisations of integrity like the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust and many illustrious others.

It is directed by Mr. Maurice Frankel. Mr. Frankel has forgotten more about the FOIA than the entire ICO and his staff ever knew. He is quite simply a Champion of the man-in-the-street where freedom of information is concerned and those FSVs who are preparing to follow the path to information and its publishing would do well to spend a few hours on their website.Go here

Mr. Frankel is an extremely shrewd judge of what approach will ‘play’, or not, and the Bugler has found him to be most generous with his time.

Try not to burden him with questions you can well find answers for yourself but when the time comes to invoke the formal use of the FOIA against a FRS, do all the preparatory documentation, and then seek the Campaign’s advice on the thrust of a particular strategy. Highly recommended.

Recently another ‘Asking Questions’ tool (in support of accountability) came to the Bugler’s attention. This site does all the tedious work for the FSVs asking a question under the FOIA www.whatdotheyknow.com/ Highly recommended.

Also to be found on the front page of the Morning Bugler with a link called ‘Ads’ on the right at the bottom of the page.

The Enacted Law.

It is always essential when consulting an Act or Regulation for legal rights to go to the last page of such an enactment to find a brief commentary in plain English entitled “Explanatory Note”. This briefly outlines the purpose of the law (if a new Act); its revisions or amendments; and the brief details of what the changes and legal impacts are. It is all quite straight forward.

Now to the applicable law and their useful application when ‘Asking Questions’, though it seems FRS pay scant, if any, attention to and which the so called ‘enforcers’ take little if any enforcement action though clearly they take the taxpayers money for doing little or nothing:

• Human Rights Act 1998.

Enforced by the UK Courts and the European Courts;

Here is a compendium of the Human Rights Act 1998; a Ministry of Justice Handbook of how Fire Authorities ought to behave themselves; and a deep read of the an analyses of HR case law by eminent lawyers in the field of European Human Rights Read all with relevant yellow highlights, Go Here.

It is particularly noteworthy that FSVs pensions are clearly defined in these case laws as their ‘possession’ to which under UK and EU law FSVs have the right of ‘peaceful enjoyment’ under Protocol 1-Article 1 (Purple highlights) and FSVs would do well to both read and grasp this simple concept because the law provides rules of compensation for those who have their right of ‘enjoyment’ trampled on by the FRS.

This Law based on European Convention of Human Rights of which the UK are a signatory provides the FSV with an opportunity to ‘Ask Questions’ concerning any perceived abuse of his European Convention rights in respect of the full and tranquil enjoyment of his ‘possession’, his pensions, free from the arbitrary and oppressive whims and legal abuses of an FRS on questions of his pensions and, should they persist in these abuses, then the right to seek recompense for the loss of this ‘enjoyment’ and amenity.

• The Freedom of Information Act 2000(FOIA).

Overseen by the Information Commissioner and enforced by the Courts;

To read the “Explanatory Note” and all the relevant yellow highlights, Go Here.

The Act broadly offers 2 types of access to information for FSVs ‘Asking Questions’:

Firstly, seeking general information under the FOIA whereby any person, a third party, including a member of the general public (FSVs) can ask an FRS questions. For example concerning its publicly funded pension management operations or by its delegated pension contractor; e.g., how many pension ‘experts’ it employs or how much their operations cost the Taxpayers (local & national)    annually, etc.

Secondly, more specifically, asking personal questions about an FSV’s own pension records, or obtaining a hard copy of pension personal record files(data). There was £10.0 fee for this service which is now abolished by the new FOI Act 2000.

This type of information is referred to under the Act as ‘subject data’ and because it may contain such  sensitive matters as medical records is not accessible to a third party. This data ‘belongs’ to the  individual by law no matter who or how those records are retained; and is only accessible to government ‘organisations’ under the most stringent conditions.

To be clear, no crossover is permitted under the Act, for example it is not permissible for a third party to obtain a copy of another individual’s pay (unless published); pension records; or personal(Service)   record files or records because the Act bars such an action.

Having been hacked about by deceitful politicians intent in hiding their unlawful activities from the   public gaze this was a particularly complex Act which is virtually unreadable in certain sections but is replaced by this latest Act.

Nevertheless FRS’s and Local Authorities employ professional ‘data protection managers’ whose sole task it is to defend them from giving a public accounting of their actions.

These data  managers are expected to play the ‘Game’ by exploitation of ‘holes’ in the Act; or by using their ‘interpretation’ concerning what this and that might mean; by delay and obfuscation (playing stupid or incompetent neither of which is difficult for an FRS;

by ignoring with impunity statutory time frames in which they are required to supply or deny (with explanation) the information; ignoring correspondence; and if the occasion demands it, by using simple falsehood.

The objective of those who should provide a prompt simple answer is twofold, firstly to provide justification for the salary they receive which underpins their grandiose title usually involving the words ‘data protection’, and secondly because they see themselves as the holders of the organisations’ ‘secrets’, which brings a reflex predestined response of delay and obfuscation. They see democracy as an opponent until, one day, they find themselves as the Defendant in Court. 

It is quite ironic given all these comments above which are based on the reality of experience that Section 16 paragraph (1) of this Act requires the Fire Authority to behave in the following manner…  “(1)It shall be the duty of a public authority to provide advice and assistance, so far as it would be reasonable to expect the authority to do so, to persons who propose to make, or have made, requests for information to it.”.

Once more Lancashire CC, the LCC PS, and the LFRS are ‘masters’ of this ‘Game’ and have not the  slightest intention of complying with any Act which is yet another wilful and flagrant breach of the law, that is until the matter landed them in Court.

It is usual at this point for the ICO to become involved and if ever bureaucracy defied the very logic of honesty, transparency, and efficiency, then this expensive organisation is another exemplar of its kind.

In summary this is a weak Act overseen by a weak Information Commissioner who has the powers to enforce his and the Public’s will but daily fudges the issue unless it suits his cynical pursuits but since he left or was sacked a new Commissioner , a Canadian lady, has brought a fresh gale of wind of change and will stand no messing around …Huzzah!

• Statutory Instrument 2008 No. 649 – PENSIONS -The Occupational Pension Schemes (Internal Dispute Resolution Procedures Consequential and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2008

Overseen by the Pension Regulator and Ombudsman and enforced by the Courts;

This is a compendium which includes ‘guidance’ from the DCLG Firefighters Pension Team on IDRP. Although it is badly written as you might expect referring only to 2008 onwards it nevertheless is a useful outline document which is still based on these Regulations and still applies to ’92 Scheme members. To read the “Explanatory Note” and all the relevant yellow highlights, Go Here.

The Pensions Act 1993(as amended by the 1995 Pensions Act) remains the legislative bed rock for all national pension matters. It is of particular importance within the Fire Service because Section 50 lays the legal requirements on all FRS to implement the requirement to have an Internal Dispute Resolution Procedure(IDRP) for unresolved pension disputes. This is further reinforced by the above 2008 Regulations.

The Regulations you will note permits a degree of flexibility in the design of the IDRP, which are normally a one Stage procedure, whereby FRS can opt for a two Stage procedure which has been adopted universally in England at the present time.

When an FSV has exhausted his initial attempts to have his, by now dispute, recognised and resolved the next step in this process is to utilise the relevant law, in this case these Regulations, by initiating  and implementing the IDRP.

It is important to note that whether this is in reality a fruitless exercise, exhausting this IDRProcedure is a prerequisite before advancing towards the Pension Ombudsman, who is Statute barred from investigating an FSV’s complaint until this IDRP charade has been exhausted.

Shortly, by following an actual live IDRP in Lancashire, the FSV will learn how this corrupt ‘Game’ is played out by an equally corrupt Pension Ombudsman.

• The Occupational and Personal Pension Schemes (Disclosure of Information)Regulations 2013;

Overseen by The Pension Regulator (TPR) and enforced by the Courts.

To Read the “Explanatory Note” and the relevant yellow highlights, Go Here.

These Regulations which became new law in April 2014 are a compendium, revision, and enhancement of old Regulations which were largely ignored in the past by Scheme managers.

These new strengthened Regulations impose clear duties on Scheme managers in the Fire Service who until now simply paid lip service.  In future under the dual threat of a proactive presence of the Pension Regulator who is expected to, not only ‘police’ these Regulations, but is also expected to impose financial penalties on individual pension Scheme management failure.

Under these threats it is to be hoped that these managers will discharge their duties and responsibilities more assiduously in the future. Indeed this is needed  to address concerns raised by the Bugler in respect of annual pension reviews, statements, and information, which are required to be sent to all Scheme members and which until now Fire Authorities and their managers have adopted a   rather laissez faire attitude.

The useful purpose of these Regulations is that they underpin in law the right to ask for information and  legally support an FSV ‘Asking Questions’ in respect an FSV’s pension(s).These Regulations apply to FSVs because they are Members of a Firefighters’ occupational pension scheme and thus a ‘relevant person’ under these Regulations; and because they are out of trade members of a recognised Trade Union  –  this is optional –  though recommended by the Bugler.

It is to be noted that under the Regulations the manager is now required by law to supply a detailed answer regarding how, and using which formulaes, and quoting the applicable parts of the pension law he has (mis)calculated your pension.

In the event this information is not forthcoming(which is a contravention of the Regulations) or  the query remains unresolved then the next step is to take the disputer to the Pension Regulator and  the Courts in that sequence.

It is to be noted that there is a movement in the Regulations towards encouraging FRS to supply FSVs with national pension legislative change information using digital ‘pathways’ and websites. This is to be welcomed and is indeed the recognition of the law which is to notify general  changes to pensions and their calculations but it will also be noted that this methodology is also encouraged for the supply of routine personal pension information(monthly pension statements) unless the FSV informs the FRS that he wishes to be contacted in the current way by hard copy  pension documents via surface mail.

The Bugler recommends retention of the latter because FRS are untrustworthy, incompetent, and currently their digitising of records are in a complete state of confused flux. It would  be wise to retain the advantage of a hard copy for personal records held domestically in the event a problem arises.

At the very minimum any on-line copy of a P60 should be downloaded and printed annually.          

There are also obvious pragmatic reasons for this, including advancing old age and lack of electronic  facilities/skills; living alone; extended absence in hospital/holiday etc; and the advantage hard copy records offers relatives/ carers/beneficiaries who may come in to sort out a pension problem if it arises.

In 2020 the reality is that TPR are quite useless when it comes to raising a Complaint about an occupational pensions scheme with them; they simply do not want to know.

So those are the lawful tools to ask the questions.

It should be remembered that the first point of contact when seeking answers should always be the Scheme manager at the FRS, copied to their pension administration contractor(if there is one) and everything should be documented, recorded, and retained.

Next to the pension ‘management’ structures within Lancashire and the individual members of staff their qualifications and roles.

Finally comes traveling the ‘Journey to Truth’, the Highways and Byways which are strewn with malicious pitfalls and   deliberate obstructions; peopled with arrogant highwaymen, and sneering pension ‘muggers’ and against whom the Bugler will present documented evidence, current examples, and comment accurately on the corporate roles of the LFRS; the LCC Pensions Services; the Information Commissioner’s Office; and named ‘expert’ individuals and why they found it necessary to act in the unlawful and immoral manner they have in defrauding disabled FSVs and their families.

But firstly we must identify and unmask those who set themselves above others and most particularly the law, any law.