This Chapter at a Glance:

• The Fateful Errors;

• Out of the Woods ~ or is it the Bog of Words ?

• An FRS Defence by Sixtieths?

• Reference Sources for Correct Pension Re~Calculation;

• Pension Calculator Tools ~ Useful Tried and Tested.

What are the fateful fundamental errors which the ‘experts’ of the FRS have made which have led to the unlawful payment of the wrong type of pension(s), and the consequential underpayment of pensions to hundreds, if not thousands, of disabled Fire Service Veterans and their Beneficiaries?

(1) The fundamental error was that when the new Pension Scheme was introduced in 1992 no attempt whatsoever was made by the LCFA to abandon the custom and practice of the old 1973 Scheme, by clerical training in administrative preparedness for the introduction of the new Scheme.But they were not alone.

UK wide it simply continued with ‘custom and practice’ on the ‘monkey see~monkey do principle’ and the interchange of office gossip between FRS pension staff on the basis of ‘how do you do it?’.

Indeed this whole sorry mess grew into a ‘hybrid’ notion of how it all should work as opposed to how the law of the new 1992 Scheme required it to work.

(2) When the new Scheme manager Warren took over in 2002 it was his Statutory duty to carry out a complete Scheme review to see if it was all working correctly.There is not a single record to show he actually did anything simply because he had not the vaguest notion about pensions in his previous ‘appointments’. When they come in on a handshake this is the ‘quality’ of staff the LCFA aquires.

(3) The principal, and continuing error, is that these current ‘pension practitioners’ (they love to legitimise their amateur clerical status) also lack any detailed knowledge of the applicable pension law, namely, the Regulations and  Rules of Statutory Instrument No:129 and their everyday practical application in calculating pension accounts to be put into payment; but were and are happy to ‘make it up’ as they go along.

(4) This chaotic attitude originated with their former colleagues, used to the simpler 1973 Scheme and their complete lack of initial formal training in understanding the principles of common law,  the applicable 1992 Statutory pension Law, the practices of simple pension account administration and pension account management of this new more complex 1992 Scheme; a chaos which has continued to this day.

If a ‘pension practitioner’ has not been trained to understand the basics of Pension Law how can they possibly get the daily application of those Laws correct?

(5) The daily direct responsibility for this state of affairs rests entirely with the delegated Pension Scheme Manager; the Chief Fire Officer of the day; and ultimately the Elected Members of the Lancashire Combined Fire Authority.

Until these failures are addressed, albeit over time, with the introduction of training programmes leading to Statutory based examinations resulting in the acquisition of individual nationally recognised pension management qualifications and skills, what can be done in the immediacy to at least stop the further accumulation of more costly errors to HMG and the Taxpayers as time advances, and more and more, disabled FSV’s pensions being put into incorrect under payment ? 

(6) The essential rectification to be achieved by these ‘experts’ is the need to know, understand, and practice how to implement the Rules of Statutory Instrument No:129 particularly those directly related to the types of pension they are repeatedly required to deal with in their daily work, namely, the application of Rules B1, B3, and L4.
This cannot be overstressed and the principal ‘pitfall’ is their application of their version of a ‘hybrid’ Rule B1 Ordinary pension to every pension which passes across their desk, regardless of the law, and on the basis of a Rule B1 ‘Fits all’.

(7) In ascertaining if an FSV has been paid the correct pension from its inception the first point to establish is, whether or not,  s/he was issued with an incorrect (or ‘hybrid’ 40/60ths, Rule B1 Ordinary ~ time served pension) in the place of a masquerading Rule B3 ill-health, and /or, a B4 Injury award pension in the instance of first payment ?

The broad rule of thumb of this ‘monkey see monkey do’ practice, is that if the ‘actual’ APP has simply been multiplied by 40 and divided by 60 and the result ‘declared unlawfully’ as the correct RuleB3/B4 pensions, the high probability is that the pension(s) is completely wrong and thus underpaid over the lifetime of the pensions since the initial payment was put in place and consequentially every other pension benefit calculated from this initial ‘error’.

(8) If the above unlawful ‘procedure’ has been followed by the Fire Authority’s ‘experts’ then this is in direct contravention of SI No:129 law, which states, that under Rule B1, a B1 Ordinary pension cannot be paid as a Rule B3 ill-health pension if the awardee has become entitled by a written decision of the FRS Authority during their compulsory discharge of him/her under Rules B3, and/or, B4…

“Ordinary pension
Bl.-( I) Subject to paragraph (2), this rule applies to a regular firefighter who retires if he then-
(a) has attained the age of 50, and
(b) is entitled to reckon at least 25 years’ pensionable service, and
(c) does not become entitled to an ill-health award under rule B3.”. Bugler’s underline.

(9). If this fateful fundamental error has been drawn repeatedly to the attention of the LCFA and to their contracted pension provider the Lancashire County Council as it has since 1992 and they have collectively failed to investigate, take legal advice, discuss this error, or correct it with the involvement of their disabled FSVs and have been repeatedly invited to do so, then this matter becomes not only an abuse of Human Rights, but exposes the LCFA to the charges of arbitrary, oppressive, and abusive use of their powers, which in turn exposes them collectively and individually to limitless restitution, and/or, exemplary punitive damages at civil law.

(10) This raises the fundamental question that if a Rule B1 Ordinary pension cannot be paid by Statutory law which acts contrary to the susequent actions of the LCFA who originally made the Statutory desision to compulsory discharge a disabled FSV with a Stautory and contractual  Rule B3 ill-health pension, and/or, a Statutory Rule B4 Injury pension why did the LCFA knowingly and perversely choose to pay a Rule B1 Ordinary pension in place of their Statutory award of  a Rule B3 and/or a Rule B4 Injury pensions ?
The answer can only be to save money by acting fraudulently.

(11) The next question is how should the correct pension (s) have been calculated in the first instance?

(12) The simple answer is to use legal multi-functional formulae provided in SI No:129, Part III, Rule B3 (Page 45) to initially calculate, under Paragraph 4, two or more notional (hypothetical) amounts of pensions to be compared to decide which is the greater and thus payable (which will be immediately obvious) which are all notional contenders for the final ill health pension to be paid, until the actual pension to be paid is finally decided.

(13) Paragraph 5 states that if the Paragraph 4 is the ‘greater’ then the Paragraph 5 becomes the lead notional contender to be paid as the ill-health pension; but what if Paragraph is either not the ‘greater’ or cannot be implemented then what happens?

(14) Then there is the consideration of the ‘Lost Career Years’ to Firefighters income by being compulsorily ejected from the Service; what can be done about that?

(15) The B3 formulae is used again to create another, a third, notional pension to serve the purpose of the Lost Career Years, or  ‘what you could/would have earned’ (in Rank terms), if the Firefighter had not been injured and compulsorily discharged; thus it becomes the third contender which invokes the use of Rule L4(3) which requires the ‘largest’ of the three contending notional retirement pensions to become the ill-health pension to be paid for life on a monthly basis.

(16) The Injury Gratuity (a once only tax free payment) and the Injury Pension (Tax free paid monthly) are to be correctly calculated from the newly created correct B3 ill-health Pension and put into payment;

For this two purposes simple Calculating Tables are provided in the SI No:129, Part V, the Injury Gratuity and the Rule B4 Injury Award (Pages 45- 46)  which are then correctly calculated and also put into payment.

(17) The LCFA have Staturory duties which include the correct administration of it Pension Schemes.
At the inception of the 1992 Firemen’s Pension Scheme the LCFA had the opportunity to seek legal guidance (it did not have an in-house LFRS solicitor but had full legal support at County Hall) to ensure that it not only set up the ’92 Scheme to run correctly within the law but when massive maladministration arose in 2006, when it did have an in-house solicitor, it failed once more to seek the reassurance that it was running its  Pension Schemes within the law but knowingly chose to cover up its malfeasance by not seeking advice through its own solicitor.

(18) In continuing, it is helpful to the lay Reader in following this chaotic debacle, to observe the workings of the actual calculation of the Bugler’s own case…Go Here.

If the difficulty is the ‘meanings of words’ then perhaps the following might help…The problem is that the actuaries tried so hard to simplify a small complex section of law into plain English  that they ended up making it more complex, rather than simpler…it is an easy bog to stumble into…getting out of it (understanding) is another matter…

The legal ‘meanings of words’ has provided a challenge it seems to junior Judges in the Court of Appeal.

If that is so, then there is little hope for lay clerks in the pension ‘industry,’ who have resolutely demonstrated, over the last 23.5 years of unlawfully paying the Bugler, and thousands of others, the wrong pensions, thus demonstrating their complete ineptitude; their complete incapability of understanding the  legal words in Statute law which they are meant to implement; and cannot even draft up a mathematically correct pension for its initial payment.

All of which confirms that even this basic task is beyond their comprehension where, quite literally, their sums do not even add up, thus confirming their complete inadequacy  in basic accountancy for which they have no qualifications either…

Readers may recall that words which are a problem and their meaning one of the the nubs of this matter where there seems to be a confusion between “is” and “by reference to” but there are other words used by the actuaries which litter this bog of misunderstanding …

For example, how about “is that of”? Or as we have also seen, “whatever is paid is a notional pension”,  leading to… but can it be a Paragraph 4 or a Paragraph 5 which is the amount to be paid, which itself is subject to, in the first instance the Statute law?

One can only decide whether the words mean the ‘notional pension’ paid,  ‘is that of’ the ill health pension’; or  the ill health pension ‘is that of’ the ‘notional pension’ when put  in its proper context…and then making the term ‘notional pension’ ~ as it is ~ subject to the law, if it can be implemented.

But this is not entirely helpful until one also says, but it follows that Paragraph 4 is not paid if it is the ‘largest’, so perplexingly by law if Paragraph 5 is the ‘smallest’ it has to be paid; but what if the latter it is not the smallest or cannot be implmented ?

If so, if Paragraph 5 is the smallest then it is paid, but if it is the ‘largest’ then it is not paid…which is the sense one has to give “is that of”, since otherwise Paragraph 4 or Paragraph 5 is never paid and would thus be entirely meaningless and one doubts whether scientific mathematical logisticians like actuaries would have included Rule B3 in the first place if it is not to be used !

Not taking a decision would also be repugnant to law where words used in legislation all have their meaning and purpose.

Though it is reasonable to comment that these actuaries/draftsmen in trying so hard to make it all plain and inescapable in simple in plain English made a poor fist of it when doing this, though we need not concern ourselves with following the labyrinthine reasoning of the draftsmen/actuaries who tried too hard to make the meaning inescapable  – by using one unnecessary extra – ‘that of’-  too far. 

It is true to say that a much better wording would simply have been… “The amounts calculated under Paragraphs 3,4,and 5 are to be compared and the ‘largest’ is to be paid “as that of” the notional pension which by formulae prevents over compensation with perhaps the exception of the Lost Career Years (lost promotion) which is also, ‘or what you could/would have earned’ ~ when put it in plain English.

A final simple example is to be found in use in B3 in Paragraph 4 (Page 45) where it states the… “is the greater of…first formula…AND…second formula…”  when in fact ‘AND’ is the wrong word and should have been ‘OR’…

Enough of these ‘wordsmith’  perambulations for the moment. 

The inescapable fact remain that the LCFA are paying an unlawful Rule B1 Ordinary pension to those it decided should be receiving a RuleB3/B4 pensions!

A common defence to their fraudulence by the LCFA is to quote the words of ‘Wisdom’, the layperson ‘pension expert’ from Lancashire, who holds no qualifications whatsoever, who regularly uses, “capped” or “sixtieths” in defence of her unlawful actions; there are no such words to be found in the relevant legislation, indeed the Bugler lawfully has calculated 55/60ths in his pension calculation.

But before then the irrefutable fact and Point-of-Law remains, which the FRS’s are incapable of answering…

“Why are you paying us an illegal Rule B1 Ordinary pension whilst unlawfully claiming it to be a Rule B3 ill-health pension which you the FRS Authorities decided to award us in the first place?”.

The following was produced from detailed research and direct personal professional actuarial contributions in 2015.
One contributor is still  a practising Actuary of 35 years professionsl standing who also designs Pension Schemes but who is also a leading senior University lecturer for this discipline.

This analyses simply demolishes all the particular nonsense written about ‘Sixtieths’ by ‘laypersons’ defending their unlawful practices, and regrettably by Appeal Court junior Judges who appear to repeating these laypersons’ mantra without actually studying the case, understanding the law, and applying it when in fact a simple case was placed before them to determine whether or not there was a sufficiency of Points~of~Law for it to be placed before the UK Law Lords of Appeal...

Subject:        Research – A Layman’s researched briefing note on two ‘similar’ Pension Schemes.

Descriptors: FSR-Fire Service Regulations; FSR-SI (Statutory Instrument).

                        PSR-Police Service Regulations; PSR-SI.

To:                  Mr. J.M. Copplestone-Bruce.

From:             Paul P Burns GIFireE.

Dear J.M. Copplestone-Bruce,

At short notice, you have asked me to provide a layman’s researched briefing note on a crude comparison between the above sets of Regulations.

I have drawn on pension industry technical advisers; practising and lecturing actuaries; and Dr Ros Altmann PhD CBE the newly appointed Pensions Minister who as you know I have been in private dialogue with for the past several years, for up-to-date information.

I am sorry it is rather rushed, so it is not a dissertation!

1.The FSR and the PSR are ‘similar’ (having a resemblance to) but not the ‘same’ (identical ~ OOED);

2.The PSR are written in a narrative form without demonstrable formulae whilst the FSR are written with both narrative and actuarial formulae being used extensively to assist pension providers in simple pension practice;

3.The FSR are clearly more modern. Highlighted in pension calculation where broadly the FSR uses years, 60ths, and applied formulae in the calculation of pensions, as opposed to just 60ths in the PSR.

The PSR Rule B3 uses a ‘reference’ based APP; whilst the FSR uses both  the ‘actual’ APP and a ‘reference’ based APP for calculation purposes and is therefore much more wide ranging and generous in its compensation potential than its counterpart.

4. The PSR in calculating APP is much simpler and clearly based on an April financial year whereas the FSR is based on two part year Pay Scales traditionally commencing on 7th November of each year the result of the settlement of first 1977/8 National Strike. This can be tedious to calculate and errors will arise if not careful.

5. An acquired understanding of the PSR (with the exclusion of B4 Injury Awards which are identical) leads to a mind-set which will not transpose to the FSR. To attempt to do so will only lead to confusion and a lack of understanding of the FSR minutiae. So a fresh untrammelled mind-set is required.

The FSR regulates a group of public servants who have a defined purpose which is different in service delivery and risk.

6. Home Office Commentaries on both Pension Schemes are insightful as to intent but they still cannot replace the law. They correctly state so in their Forewords:

“the purpose is to help those who use the Scheme to understand its provisions, bearing in mind that such guidance cannot replace or override those provisions”.

 7. The FSR Commentary K1-1 Paragraph 5 provides a useful insight into the broad purpose of an ill-health pension.

“The broad purposes of your ill-health pension are to compensate you for the interruption of your career, and (once you reach the age when you could have retired with a pension) to take the place of a retirement  pension.”. (my underline).

8. Next to a broad understanding of accrual rates.

In general, Accrual Rates can run from 1/30^th to 1/120^th and no one I have spoken with, especially a 30 year still practicing actuary, can be sure where the idea came from though there are suggestions that historically it might be the Inland Revenue.

The idea of a 60th was that it provided 2/3rds after 40 years with 2/3rds thought to be the old Inland Revenue rules with such a maximum. 80ths often comes with a lump sum of 3/80ths, and enhancement if you will.

In the past the conversion factor to change pension into cash (commutation function) was £1 of pension is worth £9 of cash). In calculation if 3/80ths of cash is taken and converted to a pension, the pension amount is 3/80 x 1/9. 

If this is added to a 1/80th pension then the total pension of 1/80 + 3/80 x 1/9 which with a bit of arithmetic is, 9/720 + 3/720 = 12/720 = 1/60th.

In other words 1/60th was seen as “the same” as 1/80^th pension and 3/80ths cash. Nowadays the conversion factor is much bigger than 9 so 1/60ths is seen as better.

9. These analyses are reflected in a modern setting by Mr. D. Hamilton, Technical Director at the Pensions Advisory Service (Transferred to the Pensions Ombudsman), who states…

“It is your pension scheme rules rather than legislation which dictate how your pension is calculated.

The situation you describe is quite common, with entitlement to a 40/60ths pension only arising at age 65, regardless of how many years the individual has spent in the scheme.

Your pension will only grow beyond 40/60ths if the scheme rules say so. Certainly legislation will not prohibit this, but it does not require it to happen.”. (My Underline)

10. Following from this what is the legislative position with 1/60ths currently in both the PSR and the FSR , with emphasis on the FSR?

• Both sets of Regulations are subordinate to the Pensions Acts.

Repeated searches of the Pensions Act 1995; the Pensions Act 2004; and the Public Service Pensions Act 2013, fail to elicit any reference to the 60ths of any description.

• The 1973 FSR-SI categorically states that an ill health pension is limited, or if you will, ‘capped’ at 40/60ths.

• The 1987 PSR-SI categorically states that an ill health pension is ‘capped’ at 40/60ths.

• The 1992 FSR-SI does not categorically state a ‘cap’ or limitation of 40/60ths to any pension or formulae throughout its main text.

However, in the entire FSR-SI there is only one direct reference to a 40/60ths ‘cap’ of a Short Service or ill-Health pension which is contained in (Sorry the lead in is tortuous), Schedule 11(Page Substitution); Special Cases; Part IV; Rule J6; Modification For Persons Serving On 10^th July 1956; Page 82; Para 17 ’For Parts I to III of Schedule 2 substitute…Part I and Part II.

I am not a Special Case and I was not serving on 10^th July 1956 and thus these substitute Pages and their content do not apply to my circumstances and I doubt to many others by now.

Nevertheless this is the only non-relevant quote in the entire SI. A statutory ‘cap’ is not stated in Rules B1-B5. Nor, most specifically, in the ill-health or ‘notional retirement pension’ formulae.

• The 1992 FSR-Commentary does indeed refer to 40/60ths but this is clearly coupled (twice) to the statement of … “what you could have earned (if you had not been injured)” within the context of a compulsory age/time served discharge, Rule B1 Standard pension.

• The 2006 FSR-SI Explanatory Note, Page 71, Paragraph (g) states:…

“pension will accrue at 1/60th per year. A firefighter member will be able to accrue more than 40 years’ pensionable service;”(My underline).

Logically to allow this accrual must then inevitably allow the payment of a pension above any so called 40/60ths ‘cap’ which in any event is not stated in this SI either?

So for FRS’s to attempt to build a defence to fraud using “capping” and erroneous “sixtieths” is simply absurd.

11. Rounding up broadly on the 60ths issue.

The Fire Service, over time, has clearly moved from the 1973, 40/60ths ‘cap’ to a position in the 1992 Scheme where there is no Statute limitation, or ‘cap’ on a pension except by formula; to a position in 2006 Scheme where accrual over 40 years of service is encouraged with the result that future pensions above 40/60ths will be paid without demur.

12. Next a closer look at the operation of the 1992 Scheme in respect of supposed existence of a 40/60ths ‘cap’.

• The B1 ‘Ordinary’ formula always calculates out to 40/60ths but there is no statutory 40/60ths stated ‘cap’ for this position in the SI.

• The FSR Rule B3 (Paragraph 4) formula consisting of 3 elements and is constructed as follows( Reading left to right ).

• The first enhancement element calculates up to 7/60ths for Long(er) Service; plus,

• The second core element calculates up to 20/60ths for the first 20 years of service; plus,

• The third core element calculates up to 20/60ths for the second 20 years of service: plus,

Mathematically this formula can add up to a maximum of 47/60ths, or, 40/60ths + enhancement, thus driving a cart and horses through this notion of 40/60ths.

Finally, when added together this produces an ill-health pension calculation but there is no Statutory stated ‘cap’ of this ill health formula, and to then, on a whim, apply such a 40/60ths ‘cap’ would be mathematically and legislatively absurd.

13. Next to the ‘Notional’ or ‘Hypothetical’ retirement pension.

In the PSR-SI there is no reference to a ‘Notional Retirement Pension’ but instead it refers to a ‘hypothetical’ pension in a narrative which specifically states a ‘cap’ is applied to this ‘hypothetical’ pension at 40/60ths.

14. In the FSR-SI, a ‘Notional Retirement Pension’ is specifically referred to in Rule B3 (Para 5) and a formula for its calculation is provided in Rule B5 (Para 2.(2).

It is actuarially constructed in a different manner. It is mathematically possible to calculate to 40/60ths but there is no statutorily stated ‘cap’ of 40/60ths to this ‘Notional Retirement Pension’ formulae and for it to be then whimsically applied would also be mathematically and legislatively absurd.

15. The FSR-SI makes provision at Rule L4(3) that where there are two contending ‘amounts’(pensions) the ‘largest’ is always paid. This Rule is applied within Rule B3 and takes final preference. There is no such provision in the PSR-SI.

16. No doubt a defence which will eventually be arrived at by any potential adversary that the Rule B3 formula exceeds 40/60ths, so let us deal with that.

Recently an Actuarial Science Lecturer * at Manchester University (a recent 30 year actuary practicing in the real world) after studying the formulae in SI129 commented that it was not at all unusual in negotiating for a new Pension Scheme for the employers to recognise, by enhancement, a particular type of award and it was his conclusion that the 7/60^th enhancement element (Long Service Award) was just such recognition of Service.

However, he also added a caveat, that Actuaries are also human and that from time to time anomalous errors in formulae in legislation may occur though are rarely picked up, but nevertheless, unless legislatively corrected, the law is the law.

17. So let us deal with the history of 1992 SI.No:129 which is the pertinent law.

According to the records of the House of Commons Librarian, in supplying  supporting documents, this Bill (Order) which led to the enactment of the 1992 Firemen’s Pension Scheme Order, Statutory Instrument 1992 No:129 was laid ‘on the table’ under the ‘affirmative resolution procedure’ on the 7th February 1992 . This meant that, unless an objection is raised to it, the Bill is not debated either in Committee, or on the floor of the House of Commons – its passage is a formality.

This Bill was authorised by Parliament as an Order and enacted on the 1st March 1992.

This according to the Librarian was not at all unusual because all parties must have been in agreement.

There has been no retrospective amendment to the SI to both identify and/or correct (if it needed correction) any supposed anomalies in the SI.

Right or wrong, fair or unfair, the fact of the matter is that this is the law and, is the law, is the law….

Paul P Burns GIFire E

15^th May 2015.

* A 2020 study of the Bugler’s contemporaneous archives reveal the following…

The ever so helpful Mr. Jonathan Ferns MSc FIA(Fellow of the Institute of Actuaries) continues to be the Senior Lecturer  in Actuarial Science in the School of Mathematics in the Alan Turing Building, University of Manchester; and practising Actuarial Consultant with Mercer, Manchester.

In extensive discussions he expressed no dissenting criticism and found no anomalous errors in the actuarial structure of the formulae used in SI No:129 ; indeed it seemed to him that though the law was not his discipline, it was the mis-application of the law rather than the SI which was the contentious issue.

But let Mr. Ferns speak for himself in 2019, Go Here.

It is important at this point to draw together the key documentary sources with extracts to highlight the legislation upon which the correct calculation of a Rule B3 ill-health pension was originally built and the intent and purpose for which it was created by actuaries and drafting legislators for approval by the UK Parliament. These documents are also to be found in one of the Bugler’s Libraries. Go Here.

The purpose of an ‘enhanced’ Rule B3 ill-health pension is best encapsulated in the following statement in the expert Home Office Commentary Rule K1-1 Para 5, which defines an enhanced ill-health pension as:

‘The broad purposes of your ill-health pension are to compensate you for the interruption of your career, and (once you reach the age when you could have retired with a pension) to take the place of a retirement pension.’ (Bugler’s underline).

Source Documents:

(a) Firemen’s Pension Scheme Order 1992;Statutory Instrument No:129; ISBN 011023129-5:

         S.I.129; Schedule 2; Part III (Ill-Health Pension); and Part V (Injury Awards); are the applicable schedules;

N.B.1. This SI must comply with the Pensions Act 1995 and its provisions override all ‘commentaries’.

N.B.2. The original S.I.129, up to and including 2004, is the applicable legislation, the terms of which, Rule B3 ought to have been applied to the Bugler’s pensions when he was compulsorily retired in February 1997.

N.B.3. Later amendments incorporated in S.I.129 in 2002+ are not relevant; nor are they retrospective to the Bugler and other 1992 pension Scheme members.

(b) The expert Home Office ‘Commentary on the FireFighters’ Pension Scheme’. First published in 1992-FIN/92 247/38/1, Home Office Finance Division 2.

“The Commentary on the Fire-fighters Pension Scheme was prepared by this Division with help and advice from fire authorities, staff associations, and other government department’s notable of which was the Government Actuary’s Department(GAD).

The purpose is to help those who use the Scheme to understand its provisions, bearing in mind that such guidance cannot replace or override those provisions.”;

N.B.1. The Home Office Commentary was and remains the unchallenged practitioner’s vade mecum for Scheme managers to correctly calculate all 1992 Scheme pensions.

It has been in daily use by all Fire and Rescue Authorities for 28 years, and remains the current Scheme point of reference for all 1992 based pensions.

This first 1992 Edition Commentary was amended on 14 occasions commencing on 14.04.2002 and concluding on the 26.5.2003. Amendments have no impact either directly, indirectly, or in retrospection on the Bugler’s and others’ position.

N.B.2. The applicable 1992 First Edition ‘Commentary’ ought not to be confused with the ‘Second Issue-September 2008’ Guide which is not relevant to 1992 Scheme pensions. In particular guidance of the ‘Second Issue-September 2008’ to the older 1992 FPS, correctly described as the ’92 ‘Consolidated’ SI which is now contained in the National Archives does not apply to the Bugler’s case and is a somewhat confusing read.

In Summary the ‘Commentary’ Pages A10-1;A13-1;A15-1; Pages B1-1 to B1-2; B3-2 to B3-3 including Examples 1;4-7; Pages B4-1 to B4-5 including Examples 1-4; are all the reference sections:

1. The Commentary Rule A10-1 defines permanent disablement … “you (or a child) are permanently disabled, if at the time in question, your disablement is considered likely to be permanent.”.

2.The Commentary Rule A13-1 defines retirement age… “Compulsory retirement age”, as ‘Assistant Divisional Officer or above’; ‘Age of compulsory retirement’ as ‘60’.  The Bugler when compulsorily discharged held the rank of a Divisional Officer Grade II.

3. The Commentary Rule A15-1 defines compulsory retirement… “If your fire authority considers that you are permanently disabled (See A10-1), they may “require you to retire on whatever date they choose”.

4. The Commentary Rule B1-1 defines an Ordinary Pension as … “In the first place, you must be a regular firefighter, have completed 25 years pensionable service and have reached age 50, to be eligible for an ordinary pension”.

5. The Commentary Rules B3-2; B3-3, defines the correct counting of 60ths (including Examples1; 4-7) which ought to have led to the application of the correct ill-health pension calculating formulae with the resultant provision of a Rule B3 “enhanced ill health” pension with a Rule B4 Injury Pension and Injury Gratuity (the latter being a once only payment). The Bugler was compulsorily discharged with a Rule B3 ill-health and Rule B4 Injury pension.

6. The Commentary Rule B3-2 defines “How much is the pension?” … “and never more than 40/60ths(2/3rds) of APP, ‘or what you could have been earned’ by compulsory retirement age”. This last statement is particularly important.

This is a direct reference to the Bugler’s “notional retirement pension” which is calculated using the formulae  in Paragraphs 4 & 5 of Rule B3. The two amounts being ultimately compared with  the ‘lesser’ usually Paragraph 5 being paid by law as the final “notional retirement pension”; though being mitigated by the question what if the Paragraph 5 amount is not  ‘lesser’ than the Paragraph 4 amount or Paragraph 5 cannot be implemented due to the disabled Firefighter being already compulsorily discharged with a Rule B3 ill-health pension and thus unable to complete his service as Paragraph 5 hypotesises ?

In the absence of Parliamentary guidance and the ‘silence’ of the Sataure  one assumes that the expert H.O. Commentary takes precedence by… “or what you could have earned by compulsory retirement age“.

This HO Commentary section also defines the counting of 60ths for pension calculation purposes with specific reference to ‘(“ill – health  enhancement”)’ and how “and, in addition” 60ths are to be counted towards an ‘enhanced’ Ill-Health
Pension.

7. The Commentary Rule B3-3 Paragraph (2) reiterates in changed prose for emphasis and defines…“never more than 40/60ths of APP, or what you could have earned by your compulsory retirement age.”.
For the source document Go Here.

(c) Regardless of the HO Commentary, the 1992 Statutory Instrument No:129 must comply with the Pensions Act 1995; the Pensions Act 2004; and the Public Service Pensions Act 2013, and their provisions override all ‘Commentaries’.
Whilst the expert H.O.Commentary may in ‘lay speak’ be compellingly insightful as to the ‘intent’ of the law, and into the thinking of the Actuarial Scientists who actually designed this Scheme, the Commentary does helpfully at times explain the obvious ambiguities in the law, but it is not the law until the end of the day when a decision is finally handed down by the Courts.

(d) In respect of this case, no case law; no Court direction; no authority other than quoted exists on the particular Point~of~Law in question, nor is it necessary.

This is not a question of the interpretation or ‘intent’ of the Statutory Instrument, this is a matter of maladministration;  misfeasance; and/or malfeasance; at the point of calculation of the original pension. In actualite simple errors in accountancy and consistent chaotic failures to apply the correct mathematical formulae contained in the provisions of Statutory Instrument No:129  which are provided to calculate the correct Rule B3 ill-health and the consequential Rule B4 injury pensions, and then put them into payment.

Unfortunately the Bugler has had difficulty locating a plain and simple mathematical  calculator for upload to TMB but will keep trying, might just be best to use your own because these days most homes have one; for the remaining Pension Calculator Tools ~  Go Here.