• The Enacted Law and Comments on the Law;

• Understanding the ’92 Scheme – Statutory Instrument No:129;

• Understanding the 1992 Home the Office ‘Commentary’ on S.I.No:129 – The Rudiments – How to Check a Pension;

• The ’92 Scheme in Practice;

• The ’92 Scheme  – The Verdict;

• Understanding Internal Dispute Resolution Procedures(IDRP) – the Law & the DCLG ‘Advice’ ;

• Understanding The Human Rights Act 1998 – Pensions as a ‘Possession’ – Ministry of Justice Human Rights “Human Lives (2006)” – an analyses of Human Rights case law;

• Understanding the Freedom Of Information Act 2000 (FOIA);

• Understanding The Public Service Pensions Act 2013;

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

It is always an essential good beginning 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.

Year-1992-Publication.

In 1992 the Home Office Fire Department (Firefighters Pension Team), which was responsible for all Fire Service pensions published two key documents:

The 1992 Firemens’ Pension Scheme Order, Statutory Instrument No:129;read the relevant yellow highlights. Go Here.

Comment ~ A plain English reference to this S.I. No:129 entitled ‘The Home Office Commentary on the Firefighters’ Pension Scheme’ prepared by the Finance Division 2 (Ref FIN/92 247/38/1).

The plain English Home Office ‘Commentary’ of 1992 remains the only relevant source for ’92 Scheme Members to consult for the correct application of the Rules (Law) contained in the 1992 Statutory Instrument No:129.

For a synopsis Go Here.

         For the full ‘Commentary’ go to the online Library Go Here.

Year-1993-Publication.

Comment ~ In 1993 the Pension Act was enacted. This legally formalised and enacted a previously informal Fire Service procedure for pension dispute resolution now known as, Internal Dispute Resolution Procedure (IDRP).

Year-1998-Publication.

Human Rights Act 1998.

Comment ~ On the 9^th November 1998 the government published the Human Rights Act. An Act to give further effect to rights and freedoms guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights[ECHR].This had a direct effect on the Fire Service ~ Firefighters rights in both UK and European law.This law was not enacted until October 2000.

Here is a compendium of the Human Rights Act 1998; a Ministry of Justice Handbook on how Fire Authorities ought to behave; and an analyses of HR case law by eminent lawyers in the field of European Human Rights (found as separate volumes in the Bugler online Library). The procedure for redress and compensation is highlighted in yellow within the Act for clarity; Purple is used for the key legal duty. Go Here.

The Chapter ‘Asking Pension Questions’ deals with how the Act can be applied in seeking answers to pension queries?

Year-2000-Publication.

The Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).

Comment ~ Prime Minister Blair introduced this Act and was in time hoisted on his own petard, so much so in fact, that later he bizarrely gave evidence to a Parliamentary Committee reviewing the FOIA, supporting the            revision/amendment of ‘his’ own Act for his own personal protection against  embarrassing ‘information’ which revealed his war mongering in Iraq. He once described the Act as “One of the biggest mistakes of his career”…

        This set the example and agenda of bare faced corruption which local authorities and Fire Authorities pursue today.

This is a weak Act usually overseen by a weak and expensive Information Commissioner who has the powers to enforce his/her and the Public’s will but daily fudges the issue unless it suits his/her cynical purposes but with a little ingenuity the information required can still be ‘teased’ out of a ‘system’ opposed to releasing  any information.  Go Here.

The Chapter ‘Asking Pension Questions’ deals with how the Act can be applied in seeking answers to pension queries and provides examples of a Fire Authority playing the ‘Game’.

Year-2007-Publication.

In January Parliament enacted The ‘New’ Fire Service Pension Scheme.

Comment ~ This ‘new’ Scheme has no legal relevance to the 1992 Pension Scheme( 1^st March 1992 – 25^th January 2007) and thus should be ignored.

Statutory Instrument 2006 No. 3432

FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICES, ENGLAND

PENSIONS, ENGLAND

The Firefighters’ Pension Scheme (England) Order 2006

Coming into force – – 25th January 2007.

Year-2008-Publication.   

In September the DCLG published “A Guide to the Firefighters’ Pension Scheme 1992 (England).

Comment ~ In spite of this deliberately confusing title this ‘guide’ holds no legal relevance for Members of the ’92 Scheme prior to the 25^th January 2007 and thus should be ignored.

The plain English Home Office ‘Commentary’ of 1992 remains the only relevant source for Scheme Members to consult for the correct application of the Rules contained in the 1992 Statutory Instrument No:129.

“A Guide to the Firefighters’ Pension Scheme 1992 (England) This guide reflects the rules of the Firemen’s Pension Scheme Order 1992 (as amended)”.

“Second Issue ~ September 2008″. This has no relevance to the 1992 Scheme and thus should be ignored.

Year-2008-Publication.

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

Comment ~ The original IDRP concept was enacted in the Pensions Act 1953; consolidated in the Pensions Act 1995; and revised and updated in these latest Regulations 2008.

There is a compendium of the Regulations with a DCLG guide to their use and application by Fire Authorities Go Here.

The Chapter ‘Asking Pension Questions’ deals with how the Act can be applied in seeking answers to pension queries.

Year-2013-Publication.

On 25th April 2013 Parliament enacted the Public Service Pensions Act 2013.

Comment ~ In addition to compelling Scheme managers to adhere to standards of accountability, efficiency, honesty, impartiality, integrity, and transparency the Act compels the DCLG Firefighters Pension Team on behalf of the ‘responsible person’ namely the Secretary of State of the DCLG to resolve pension disputes and/or to take the dispute to the High Court on a point of law. Yellow highlights the actions to be taken in law; purple highlights the absolute key duties laid on the DCLG Firefighters Pension Team.

The Pensions Regulator the ultimate authority in ‘policing’ this Act has drafted and finalised the Code of Practice No:14 to be read in conjunction with the Act.Courts are required to take the CoP into account when reaching any judgment.

For the Act Go Here and for the Explanatory Notes Go Here.

For the Pension Regulator Final Code of Practice No:14. Go Here.

Year-2014-Publication.

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

Comment ~ These new strengthened Regulations impose clear duties on Scheme managers to supply information to Scheme Members in the Fire Service.

The Chapter ‘Asking Pension Questions’ deals with how the Act can be applied in seeking answers to pension queries. Go Here.

Now to reading and understanding the detail of S.I. No:129.

This SI is a little unusual in that unlike most other SIs it tends to use arcane language and prose while describing the contents.

While this may seem daunting and confusing at first glance it does in fact just follow the standard legislative layout used by legislators but needs a little getting used to.

The SI is divided into ‘Parts’ with attached Schedules. Confusingly in practice the word ‘section’ is used in the main Parts and the word ‘Rule’ is substituted and used extensively in the Schedules attached to these Parts. The word ‘Rule’ is written and widely used in the accompanying 1992 Home Office ‘Commentary’.

So in custom and practice the word ‘Rule’ is used when referring to the various Sections, a particular pension type, or its provisions.

Confused? The Editor can be excused for assuming he was not the only ‘Irish’ commentator on this subject…

Thus, for example, the SI describes pension types in ‘Part B Personal Awards’ as simply:

B1(30 years’ time served ‘Ordinary Pension’) ;

B2(‘Short Service Award’);

B3(‘ill-Health Award’);

B4(‘Injury Award’);

B5(‘Deferred Pension’); and so on…;

but these pensions in the Schedules are described with the prefix Rule as in, Rule B1;Rule B2; Rule B3; Rule B4; Rule B5 etc,.

Likewise in the Home Office ‘Commentary’ which exactly ‘mirrors’ the S.I.[or should] the same pension types are described as:

Rule B1(30 years’ time served ‘Ordinary Pension’);

Rule B2(‘Short Service Award’);

Rule B3(‘lll-Health Award’);

Rule B4(‘Injury Award’);

Rule B5(‘Deferred Pension’); and so on.

So the in this respect the Bugler will use the common expression ‘Rule’ in its descriptions.

As might be expected the SI covers a myriad of, at times, complex subjects all dealing with pension types, benefits, and entitlements but there are really two elements which interest the Morning Bugler readers namely ‘Part B Personal Awards’ and directly coupled with this ‘Schedule 2 Personal Awards’.

Together these deal with the definition of a particular pension type and the mathematical formulae which is attached to this Rule and which is to be correctly applied to that pension type in order to correctly calculate the final pension to be paid.

How this simply works in practice is dealt with later in this Chapter.

The SI is yellow highlighted to ease understanding of those parts that the Reader will be most interested in from a pension checking standpoint.Go Here.

So how simply does it all work in actual practice?

‘The Home Office Commentary on the Firefighters’ Pension Scheme’ which was prepared by the Finance Division 2 (Ref FIN/92 247/38/1), is a document of 431 pages, which states in its prologue that it was created and written specifically in plain English by government pension experts for the daily use of pension practitioners within the UK Fire Service pension administration.

‘Experts’ who were to be trusted to implement the terms of this new ‘92 Scheme for its Members until in effect the last Scheme Member and/or beneficiary passed away in the late 21^st century.

In common with all commentaries on Acts of Law it is usual to state that any such Commentary is not a substitute for the actual law  and that  the final arbiter is in any event the Courts and this reminder is ‘writ large’ on the opening pages.

However the ‘Commentary’ was prepared specifically to guide pension practitioners in their implementation of the Scheme – a practice ‘authority’ – not to ‘replace or override’ the legislation, but to ensure uniformity of interpretation and that the correct interpretation and guidance was given to all, to ensure consistency, and an even handed approach.

However, this Commentary is by any standard of legal drafting a remarkable piece of work. Clearly it was drafted by the self-same drafters who drafted the original Statutory Instrument No:129.

It is of particular note that every comment on every Part, Section, Schedule, or Rule of S.I.129 attempts to exactly ‘mirror’ the Commentary itself thus making the reading of the Statutory Instrument a very simple and straight forward exercise of common-sense in practice.

In praxis, for example, this meant that should a query arise on Rule B3 then it was a simple matter to go to the S.I. read the actual law and immediately move over to the mirrored ‘Commentary’ and read in plain English what the drafter intended that meaning to be.

Nothing could be simpler, but be wary of human errors.

Indeed it is significant that this ‘Commentary’ also states that it was specifically written and intended for direct use by those in pre-retirement, retired, or serving Fire-fighters who wished to consult the document for their own benefit or in conjunction with their legal advisers, both now, and in the future.

In fact it is hard to find a more user friendly Commentary and much cost and effort was expended to make it so, though  finding a copy of the actual ‘Commentary’ to consult is entirely another matter.

It is abundantly clear to any Reader or user that this work was to be vigorously and widely used in daily pension administration and it was written in a particularly skilled fashion to address a catholic range of users with a wide variety of reading skills, or none.

Given all these parameters how could it be that these  local pension practitioner ‘experts’ could get it so wrong over such a grotesque period of time?

This is a grotesque failure of ‘duty of care’ the Bugler deals with in some depth and detail later.

Those who joined the Service under the 1956 Pension Scheme who subsequently transferred to the next 1973 Pension Scheme [including the Bugler], had the advantage that they were supplied with an individual, though truncated plain English guide(described as ‘everyday language’) to the 1973 Scheme which was printed in 1987 and which was an honest attempt to explain the provisions of the Scheme not only to Firefighters but to their families.

There is an interesting opinion on Page 12 of this particular  booklet… ‘No ill-health pension can exceed the lesser of, the Scheme pension that you would be entitled to if you remained in service until compulsory retiring age, or a “40/60^th pension”.

It failed to state and explain what a ‘notional pension’ was and how that would impact on the calculated ‘enhanced’ pension for the Beneficiary. But it was a decent gesture at fair play.

However this is carefully and fully explained in the HO Commentary supplemented by an eminent Barrister’s Opinions(there are 7 in this section. Each progressing, to a certain limit, towards plainer English. Go Here.

Returning to the vexed question of where to locate an actual and accurate copy of the ’92 ‘Commentary’ it seems there was [and continues to be], no acknowledgement or confirmation of its existence within the entire Service at Fire Authority level; nor was its actualite published and circulated; or at least made freely available for consultation as would normally be the case; and thus no marker was ever put down where it might be found.

Yet surely every Fire Authority was bound to have a copy, otherwise how could they daily function as pension providers? But reading it; understanding even the plain English; and putting it into pension practice was a bird of an entirely different feather as we shall see.

One can only conclude that giving access to the Commentary by a serving Member of the Scheme or a mere retired Member was to be discouraged. One wonders why?

What was so secret or embarrassing that until this day Fire Authorities obstruct the legitimate right of Scheme Members access to this Commentary or by denying its existence to a Barrister as Mr.Warren did recently in Lancashire. Could it be that Members might discover and confirm for themselves that they had been the victims of institutionalised fraud?

When the opportunity to study the relevant mainstream Rules written in plain English which is now presented on the Morning Bugler and the decades of secrecy and deceit are stripped away only then will a study of the implications become clear in fiscal terms for every ’92 Scheme Member, or their legal representatives and the true nature of the scandal perpetrated on them and their Beneficiaries become obvious.

Indeed  as we have noted above there is and what a confusing  and monumental mess the DCLG[Home Office] made of it all or was this deliberate malfeasance or just the folly and incompetence of a failed government sub-department, the Firefighters Pension Team at the DCLG/Home Office?

After 1998 and the closure of the ’92 Scheme in 2004 in order to provide some interim guidance to Fire Authority pension practitioners ‘experts’ someone at the DCLG had the bright idea that the ‘old’ 1992 Home Office Commentary on the ’92 Scheme should be amended/re-written before the introduction of another ‘second’ guide in September 2008 to the ‘new’ 2006 Pension Scheme.

The law could not be changed but craftily this did not mean that the Commentary, these working instructions to the pension practitioner ‘experts’, could not.

This hybrid Commentary was then cleverly introduced during this interim period as the ‘current’ (second?) Edition of the original 1992 Home Office Commentary which included these confusing new ‘freedoms/amendments’ which the Government/NJC Employers and Fire Authorities could an exercise entirely at their own discretion, or so they thought.

Clearly the ‘management’ of these Commentaries and ‘guides’ was an epic disaster even by the ‘normal standards’ of the DCLG/Home Office Firefighters Pension Team. It is little wonder then that any honest pension practitioner(and in truth they are to be found) could neither make head nor tail of these Commentaries or ‘Guides’ and had not the vaguest notion where or how they should be applied, or  to which Pension Scheme?

However this total bureaucratic confusion was clearly recognised by unscrupulous Scheme ‘managers’ as a golden opportunity to defraud ’92 Scheme Members by deliberately and wrongly applying the terms of the 2008 ‘Guide’ to the ’92 Scheme to the fraudulent advantage of the enrichment of the coffers of Fire Authorities.

An action upon which these self-same ‘managers’ could then capitalise by awarding themselves annual bonuses of ‘management’ for their ‘efficient’ fraud.

In one instance(or more) in Lancashire in a pure act of malevolent fraud the Scheme ‘manager’, a Mr.Warren [a part time ‘advisor’ to the NJC/Employers] deliberately retained a disabled Officer in service until after 1^st April 2006 in the mistaken belief that by doing so he could then apply the disadvantageous terms of the 2006 Scheme to this ’92 Scheme Member which he did. Not only was this a malevolent/criminal act but it also demonstrates the paucity and superficiality of this NJC/Employer’s ‘advisor’ ‘knowledge’ of both Pension Schemes for which he is directly accountable and upon which apparently he scandalously gives national advice?

Such an act, with malice aforethought [as the Fire Service Veteran involved has testified to], is simply nothing short of criminal. Does the NJC Employers normally employ such ‘talented’ people as ‘advisers’?

So, using the plain English Commentary and the S.I. can any Scheme Member check the accuracy of their own pension? Yes.

What pension ‘expertise’ is needed to carry out this simple task? None.

This plain maths exercise could not be simpler to carry out because it is not a question of interpretation of the law but a simple calculation (maths) using a common calculator.

But how is this effected?

Firstly, the S.I. and the Commentary explain the types of pensions there are and how they are calculated and the Member will, or should, know the type of pension(s) he/she has been awarded from their own discharge papers.That is why it is so essential before commencing a checking exercise that the FSV clearly identifies from their discharge papers precisely the stated type of pension(s) they have been awarded by the Fire Authority.

The Bugler is contemptuous of the use of the word ‘Awarded’ it implies serfdom.The pension(s) was paid for and earned in blood, sweat, tears, and sometimes Death.

Secondly, the formulae to be used for each class of pension is clearly stated in Schedule 2–Personal Awards of the S.I. All that has to be supplied by the FSV for the calculations to commence are the number of years and days served, and the final Average Pensionable Pay(APP), but more on this curious APP later because there can be more than one APP at different points in the legislation.

A detailed worked through example will be published on the Morning Bugler with step by step guidance and it is then a simple matter of following that procedure to verify the accuracy of each Member’s pension(s).

The results may well produce startling reading when factoring in the Statutory compound interest rate of 8% recognised by the Late Debts Act 1998 which recognised the act of ‘enrichment’ by the Fire Authority due to their failure of fiduciary duty of pension care to FSVs.

Fire-fighters whether retired or in Service are not quite as poorly educated as NJC Employers and Fire Authorities would wish or hope them to be and are more than capable of using a simple calculator and reading and understanding a ‘plain English Commentary’ written especially for them.

Finally, disregard any amended ‘Commentary’ you may read on the DCLG/Home Office website which includes a 2008 Guide with grayed out sections meant to provide guidance on the ’92 Scheme. It is simply another epic masterpiece of confusion.

The Bugler has scanned and reproduced the only correct and applicable Commentary based on an original archived hard copy(with amendments) for its readers to check their own pensions.

Such a simple matter as a pension calculation should no longer be left in trust with these envious ‘experts’.

How did the ’92 Scheme is work in custom and practice? What was the envisaged life span of this Scheme? Finally what is the verdict on this Scheme from a retired/disabled Fire Service Veteran and their beneficiaries’ standpoint?

The enactment and major effect of the ‘92 Pension Scheme was that those personnel still in active service who had joined the Service prior to 1st March 1992, including those contributing to earlier Schemes (including the Editor), now had the opportunity to automatically transfer to this new ‘92 Scheme because of the advantageous pension benefits the new Scheme offered. 

A Scheme for which they had marched the streets with their families during the first 9 week National Fire Service strike of 1977/78 and for which they were prepared to pay 11%(less 1penny) annually from each Scheme Member’s gross pay packet.

A fact subsequently resolutely ignored by envious civil servants, both national and local, and politicians of all colours when it suits their ‘spouting’ about the proposed ‘generous’ Fire Service pension Schemes of today.

If a Firefighter was completing his 30^th year of service at midnight on the 29^th February 1992 this would mean that his service, which commenced in February 1962, would make him automatically entitled to join the new ‘92 Scheme on this last day of his old Scheme and to reap the benefits of the new ’92 Scheme in retirement, commencing the following day on the 1^st March 1992.

In addition, still in retrospection, this also meant that below the rank of -Station Officer- a Fire-fighter was entitled to serve up to 55 years of age, that is, his compulsory retirement age, if he chose to exercise this right to extend his service up to that point.

His Fire Authority had a legal duty to bring this option to his attention and if they did not do so, which many did not, not only did they fail to comply with the law but they effectively and knowingly defrauded that Scheme Member of his correct pension benefits.

Similarly, still in retrospection, this also meant that at and above the rank of -Station Officer- an Officer was entitled, if he chose to exercise his rights, to serve up to his compulsory retirement age of 60 years. If this option was not brought to his attention then he too and his pension were also defrauded.

Thus in practice a transferee into this new Scheme could well have joined the Service in 1952 aged 20 and could still have the ’92 Scheme benefits when compulsorily retired on his 55th/60^th birthday 1987/1992 respectively.

All this comment could be misconstrued as simply the nuances of the changeover of one Scheme to another but which could nevertheless have had a major impact on an individual Scheme member’s final benefits income. But as we have recorded Firefighters had implicit total trust in those who were administering their pension, a trust which was remorselessly betrayed.

This changeover from one Scheme with its Rules and conditions to another Scheme with its entirely different Rules and conditions is an aspect which any retired or potential retiree would do well to study with interest. There was an opportunity here for the Fire Authorities to defraud the Scheme Member, and they did so, whether by misfeasance(a legal act performed improperly), or malfeasance( deliberate official misconduct leading to fraud), or simple incompetence.

Once more the changeover from the ’92 Scheme to the ’06 Scheme presented the Fire Authorities with the same opportunities of fraud under the same conditions of implementation and once more fraud has taken place.

In 1998 the ’92 Scheme was closed to new entrants but this simply meant that those now in the  Scheme would (If they were wise) continue with this Scheme, ignoring all others, until they finally retired whilst carrying forward with them all the benefits accrued which they had paid for and were still paying for until their final retirement under the ’92 Scheme in the 21^st century.

In custom and practice if a Firefighter joined the 1992 Scheme before midnight on the 31^st March 1998 aged 20 she/he could serve for 35 years whilst still accruing

pension benefits [Average Pensionable Pay] benefit only for the last 5 years of the 35 years) below Station Officer rank until 2033, retire and receive the full benefits-including family benefits-of the ’92 Scheme, for which they paid 11%(less 1 penny) or more of their gross annual salaries over the preceding decades.

Equally, if a Firefighter joined the 1992 Scheme before midnight on the 31^st March 1998 aged 20 and subsequently attained the rank of Station Officer[Watch Manager] or above they would be entitled to continue to serve for 40 years whilst still accruing pension benefits [Average Pensionable Pay benefit only for the last 10 years] until 2038 the compulsory retirement age of 60 years but  when the ’92 Scheme benefits would still have to be administered and paid out to her/him.

That is unless Firefighters are not vigilant and the Employers and the Fire Authorities are allowed to move the ‘goal posts’ which they do, or regularly attempt to.

The ‘92 was a ‘good’, fair, and richly well-deserved Scheme for Firefighters and their Beneficiaries. The ‘management’ of it was an entirely different matter as we shall see.

With the advent of ‘new’ Schemes post – 2004 do these ‘new’ Schemes supersede the old ’92 Scheme the Members transferred into, or signed up to, when he joined the Service between 1992 and 1998? – No!

Is the Member forced to join or transfer to this ‘new’ Scheme? No! And he/she is a greedy fool if they are tempted by ‘cake today’ to do so.

Will this ’92 Scheme always be the Member’s and their Beneficiaries Scheme when he/she dies?- Yes!

Can the Fire Authorities apply any part, Rule, or Regulation of a ‘new’ Scheme, e.g. ‘06 Scheme to his/her ’92 Scheme?-No.

Though in Lancashire this deliberate and malicious fraud had already been perpetrated by pure deceit on trusting retiring FS Veterans.

Scheme Members who unwisely accepted the Fire Authority decision on ‘trust’  would be well advised to follow the simple step-by-step procedures which will ultimately laid out on this website to check the validity and accuracy of the pension(s) they are currently receiving to determine whether or not the correct Rules, of the correct Scheme, are being applied to their correct pension(s) and if not how to challenge this through the Internal Dispute Resolution Procedure on the eventual way to either the DCLG/Home Office Firefighters Pension Team; the High Court; and/or the Pension Ombudsman [who is actually pretty useless].

In Lancashire[to be published] any Pension Appellant on a query can expect the usual scandalous official stonewalling; abuse of due procedure; deliberate time wasting; falsehood upon falsehood supporting recognised acts of corporate and individual criminal pension fraud which are publicly endorsed by each individual elected Member of a Labour led Combined Fire Authority, so the Clerk to the Fire Authority Mr. Winterbottom has informed us in writing[also to be published].

All Fire Authorities will exhibit a reluctance to pay up[with interest] when a pension error is discovered but perhaps this may not be taken to the criminal lengths it has been in Lancashire.

So the advice remains unaltered; pensions are boring until the Fire Authority decide to underpay or not pay at  all; stay in the ’92 Scheme; understand your Rights under the Scheme by reading and understanding the relevant parts of Statutory Instrument No:129 and more importantly its accompanying ‘plain English’ guide, the 1992 Home Office Commentary ; and download and retain these two documents reproduced in the Morning Bugler for the future use prior to, during, and after retirement.

Above all else be prepared to use the legal mechanisms provided in law to challenge the Fire Authority and the DCLG/Home Office Firefighters Pension Team right to the European Court of Human Rights if necessary.

But first the quite useless Fire Authority Internal Dispute Resolution Procedure[IDRP] must be exhausted. See the Chapter on ‘Asking Questions’.

Few, if any, Firefighters knew, or indeed know, any of the fine details of the Pension Scheme that they signed up to.

It is sufficient to know that the pension was there as protection for the family in the event that a personal catastrophe arose in Operations.

Knowledge of Pensions Schemes, or the need to know, naturally increases with Service but by that time important decision will have been made and voted on without really understanding the detail. This was best left to others who, one hoped, were acting in a Scheme Members’ best interest.

No formalised Pension Scheme education was ever provided, perhaps on the initial Recruits Course where there are far more exciting topics to absorb or later an occasional station visit by a pension ‘expert’ . But because it is such a dry and apparently boring subject even today it  quickly drives a listener into a ‘glazed-over’ state.

Yet perversely members still proceed to buy and insure a house after a considerable amount of wise research and discussion with the appropriate people involved but once more no attempt is made to read the detail of an insurance policy until driven to it in extremis.

So why not the same with a life time pension investment?

All this disinterest is grounded on the excuse that those who took care of such things as an individual’s pension could be trusted to do the right and honest thing; they knew best simply because they were working with pensions day in and day out. But that has changed because trust is no more…

Today the new generation of Firefighters, one hopes, looks more carefully at pensions as a means of investing today to provide the same standard of living for their family three decades down life’s highway. If an increased proportion of income is to be invested in any Pension Scheme then more thought will be required to make the correct financial decisions based on more education on the subject, whether boring or not.

An individual Scheme member owes it to themselves and their families to get it right at an early point in Service and to keep refreshing that state of the pension knowledge, at least annually.

So did the authors and architects of the ’92 Scheme get it right?

In the main they did. This Scheme, the by-product of serious industrial hostilities, was meticulous in the manner it addressed the fine detail of the provisions of the benefits set out in detail both in the Statutory instrument and in the accompanying ‘Commentary’ and is a credit to all those involved in its creation.

Though not perfect, it nevertheless provides the ‘model’ for any Fire Service Pension Scheme of the future.

Those with the duty of administering and dealing daily with the implementation of the Scheme had little need for

All these ‘experts’ had to do was read and implement the Rules written for them in plain English but even this rudimentary requirement was not addressed properly by them. Nor could it defeat the inherent human need to tinker with this or that Rule because this was what they ‘thought’ a Rule or legal expression actually meant and then, because they were ‘experts’, implementing it as they saw fit.

This was and continues to be the Achilles heel of any Scheme, the ‘they know best syndrome’.

So was the ’92 Scheme a good scheme, indeed it was. It stood the test of 22 years and will stand the test for decades to come if the current members of the Scheme do not allow it to be neutered or dismembered.

What seems to be the strongest recommendation for any public service Pension Scheme is the overwhelming desire of any serving government to neuter and replace it as soon as possible with a less caring scheme for its Members but more ‘friendly’ for the government coffers.

The major failure of the ’92 Scheme was the failure of administration and management by those who were simply not qualified in any respect, formal or otherwise, to control a large and complex budget mechanism so vital to the post service lives of Fire Service Veterans and their families without even the minimum of a recognised accountancy qualification.

No one knows how many clerical mistakes were made in favour of the Fire Authorities coffers, probably hundreds of thousands,because self assuredly ‘they knew what they were doing’.

Nor how many underpayments were made to pensioners; how many overpayments were made to the living and the dead wasting taxpayers monies; because quite simply no one is capable of carrying out an analysis to discover these errors and more appallingly these ‘experts’ have not the slightest inclination to account for themselves or have their maladministration exposed to scrutiny.

Indeed there was not the the inclination to even determine the ‘quality’ of the service being delivered, self-congratulation in their ‘Newsletters’ being the order of the day, of which more later.

This litany of administrative failures was identified by the Hutton Inquiry and the characteristics, systems, and corrective regimes to be put in place to rectify this scandalous state of affairs have now been identified and encapsulated in law with the expectation that this is what will be delivered from this point forward; but it was not.

So the verdict is that the ’92 Scheme was, and is, a fundamentally good Scheme if properly administered and managed by formally qualified practitioners delivering a quality service which is closely, independently, rigorously, and regularly monitored by the Pension Regulator.

For the IDRP Regulations and DCL Guide. Go Here.

Whilst a single Stage procedure could be utilised, the Act made provisions for Fire Authorities to opt for a Two Stage procedure, which they all did. They worked on the false premise that the longer they could string issues out the better but they chose to ignore the legal and statistical facts that when, rather than if, they lose they will still have to pay up because retrospection to a material date, namely the official commencement date of the dispute is built into the Regulations of the appropriate Scheme.

In 2004 in a consolidation exercise the new Pension Act 2004 substituted and updated IDRP sections in the 1995 Act and then combined this with the 1996 Occupational Pension Schemes [Internal Dispute Resolution Procedures] Regulations.

In February 2008 ‘The Occupational Pension Schemes [Internal Dispute Resolution Procedures Consequential and Miscellaneous Amendments] Regulations 2008 S.I.No:649’] were enacted. This required Scheme managers in Stage I of a dispute to make persons who apply for the resolution of a pension dispute (“applicants”) aware that the Pensions Advisory Service [TPAS now dedfunct * ] was available to assist them and that after Stage II exhaustion the Pensions Ombudsman is available [at no charge] to investigate and determine any unresolved complaint or dispute.

*The Money and Pensions Service (MaPS) replaces the 3 existing providers of government-sponsored financial guidance – the Money Advice Service, the Pensions Advisory Service and Pension Wise. It provides free and impartial debt advice, money guidance and pension guidance to members of the public.

This is part of the required notification to the Applicant by the Chief Fire Officer or Scheme manager [or specified person’s decision] in relation to the pension dispute.

Most of these organisations  are staffed by volunteers, few if any, knowing a single thing about pensions. It appears from the practical experience of the Bugler to be a trawler operating on a solicitors’ high seas of opportunity flying a Jolly Roger whereby an enquirer might end up being redirected to a ‘specialist’ solicitors who might, or then again might not, have any capability in the field of  pension law.

It seems best just to tick the box and redirect oneself to The Pensions Ombudsman[TPO] after procedurally exhausting  Stage I & II of the Statutory IDRP.

Speaking of guano, in 2009 the DCLG Firefighters Pension Team provided tidying up ‘advice’ in a ‘First Issue’ document which completely ignores Members of the ’92 Scheme or their desires to pursue a pension dispute because no reference whatever is made their ’92 Scheme. The DCLG/Home Office – FPT quality of work remains consistent guano.

In 2013 the new Public Service Pensions Act 2013 amended the post Stage II procedure of involving The Pension Ombudsman by replacing him when it stated that the Secretary of State of the DCLG+FTP have, once more, despite trying to dump their responsibility on The Pensions Ombudsman the sole responsibility in law for resolving Fire Service pension disputes, and in the event of a question of law, they have the duty to bring the dispute to a higher Court for a decision, but they will not until forced to do so.

But this does not mean that an Applicant, in the strategy of handling his pension dispute, cannot in the first instance make use of the Pension Ombudsman [at no personal charge] before, if necessary, going to the DCLG-FPT. There is nothing in law to prevent this stratagem.

But before doing so, the Applicant must have exhausted, on paper, the IDRProcedures, and must not have instituted legal proceedings against the Fire Authority because the TPO is Statute barred from taking up the dispute if either, or both, of these preconditions exist.

If, after using the TPO, his decision seems to err in law then the Applicant can then take it to the DCLG-FPT for them to take it  forward to a higher Court [at no personal charge] as the law requires them to do, in order to test a TPO’s negative decision at law, thus in effect providing two opportunities in sequential steps for the Applicant to test the law in a pension dispute at no charge to himself.

When IDRP was first introduced in 1993 the subsequent principal misuse of IDRP was by the Fire Authorities in the supposed resolution of medical disputes/appeals which

had arisen in respect of compulsory discharges where FSVs had in effect had the Judge and Jury ‘packed’ against them.

From commencement the Fire Authority always relied on their paid decision maker, their Doctor, to regularly find for the Fire Authority and against the Appellant.

An Appeal would, in addition, then be routinely put on the ‘wrack of time’ in a wanton abuse of due process in the vain hope that the Appellant would throw in the towel, or die, or just quit the whole deliberately obfuscating business.

It must be borne in mind that any Appellant, to reach this point in IDRP, must have been seriously injured to the point of Statutory disablement and/or was seriously ill in the first place.

Fire Authorities routinely forget that should the unfortunate pensioner die, as they hope, the pension debt to him/her is not expunged but remains due to the estate of the Deceased and their Beneficiaries.

This scandalous cynical misconduct on medical appeals was of course a blatant abuse of fundamental Human Rights and was still based of the age old ‘principle’ of the NJC Employers/Fire Authorities of ‘use ‘em and sling ‘em’ on the human scrap heap. This iniquitous ‘principle’ continues today; if they are allowed to get away with it.

However, by dint of legal challenges and case law in an ever running battle NJC Employers/Fire Authorities were finally forced to create panels of independent doctors and specialists to adjudicate on the medical aspects of disputes so that the ‘packing of the juries’ and ‘fixing’ of the judge was reduced but not entirely eliminated, because as is well known ‘doctors differ and patients die’…

Other non-medical disputes dealt with under IDRP are also exposed to the combined malicious manipulations of NJC Employers; Fire Authorities; Chief Fire Officers; and their Scheme managers, whereby weak laws and IDRP weaknesses are scandalously and deliberately exploited.

The most exploited issue deliberately misused by Fire Authorities to confound the principles of natural justice, in what ought to be fair play in an atmosphere of third party independent scrutiny, is that when, after the initial pension dispute discourse has failed and an Applicant intends to invoke IDRP in dispute, the first ludicrous step under Stage I  requires the Applicant to have recourse to the very same person who the Applicant already views as having created the error(s) which have given rise to the dispute in the first place, namely the Scheme manager, under whose further autonomous and autocratic control the remaining IDR Procedures are ‘neutered’ by deliberate obfuscation until eventually the IDRP is fully exhausted, if only by time, or death .

This Statutory IDRP which sits in what can best be described as an exploitable time frame and which any Judge worthy of note would regard as poor quality law can also, in a morally repugnant abuse of power by the self same Scheme manager, be used to the detriment of an Applicant at a point in life where he and his/her beneficiaries may well be finding time is of the essence.

This exhaustion by obfuscation includes exposure of the pension dispute to all the elected Members of a Fire Authority, or it should.

But as we shall see in actions more akin to ‘you may as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb’, a Scheme manager can easily exploit and deceive a ‘sleepy hollow’ Committee with the complicit assistance of his Chairman/Deputy Chairman of the Fire Authority with their Clerk, and the Chief Fire Officer by using a well choreographed and regularly practised black art involving the abuse of the ‘urgent decision’ powers of a Fire Authority’s Chairman/Deputy Chairman allied with an exercise in polished deceit; accomplished misconduct in public office driven by criminal fraud which they forget carries personal civil and criminal liability.

In addition such contrived delays are a direct breach of Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights and the Human Rights Act 1998.

Suppose this is all a figment of this Editor’s fevered imagination? Suppose for sake of argument we look for an active and continuing demonstration of the malignant exploitation and deliberate manipulation of not only the spirit of IDRP but wilful breaches of the Statutory law by looking once more at the Lancashire Fire Authority, the league table leader in all matters scandalously fraudulent.

In a section of the Chapter on ‘Current Affairs’ the Bugler will shortly publish current correspondence to substantiate an example of these scandalous abuses in a current IDRP in progress in which the Burler was directly involved with the Scheme manager; the Chief Fire Officer; the Clerk to the Fire Authority; and the Chairman and elected Members of the Lancashire Combined Fire Authority.

The European Convention on Human Rights was enshrined into UK law in October 2000 as the Human Rights Act 1998. So when either discussing the ‘Convention’ or the HRA it is virtually the same.

Judicial powers were bolstered by the introduction of the HRA which prohibits public authorities from breaching fundamental Human Rights.

Does HRA have a role to play or an influence in the administration of a Fire Service pension? – Yes.

The HRA has a distinct bearing on a pension in two aspects namely in respect to Article 6 of the Convention and the First Protocol [a Protocol is a later addition to the Convention].

Article 6 [n the main text] principally deals with the manner in which he is treated during proceedings in respect of fair play , human dignity, and the right to a reasoned decision in a dispute which must elucidate the manner and methodology employed to reach that decision. This particularly affects the correct implementation of IDRP by the Fire Authority.

The First Protocol is located in Schedule 1 – Part II – The First Protocol – Article 1 – Protection of Property of the Act. This provides the Citizen/FSV with the right to peacefully enjoy his ‘possessions’. Your pension is a possession.

Fire Authorities can have no doubt for the need for compliance with the HRA in its role as a pension provider nor the need to regard an FSV’s pension(s) as his ‘possession’ had they troubled themselves to read and implement the provisions of “Human Rights: Human Lives” published in 2006 by the Ministry of Justice which prepared a comprehensive guide for Public Authorities(Fire Authorities) which included Scheme managers who were likely to ‘engage’ the HRA in their duties during the administration of a Fire Service Pension Scheme.Go Here.

Under the First Protocol a pension/benefit is an intangible possession within the meaning of the Protocol and thus a FSV has to right to peacefully enjoy his correct pension(s) free from arbitrary and unacceptable interference or oppression and should a dispute arise over this pension his tranquillity is further protected by Article 6 which is particularly applicable in the prelude to IDRP and during its process to conclusion.

Should the FSV be arbitrarily and/or oppressively dispossessed of his correct pension [in his possession] initially by the failure of a Fire Authority to comply with the law and a dispute arises engaging the IDRP  during which the Fire Authority continues to behave in an unlawful, arbitrary, and oppressive manner then the HRA is ‘engaged’ not once but twice in direct breach of the Convention.

 The HRA categorically prohibits such breaches.

All these failures which result in the enrichment of a Fire

The procedure for redress and compensation is highlighted in yellow within the HRAct , and purple for the key law.

In challenging any arbitrary decision under the HRA there are, as ever, some legal hurdles or ground rules to comply with.

The decision must have been made by a public authority – in this case a Fire & Rescue Authority.

The challenger, the FSV, must have ‘standing’ in the matter namely sufficient personal interest to allow a challenge – in this case his/her Fire Service pension(s).

Finally, any decision will have to be challenged ‘promptly’ usually within 3 months, a Court Procedure and Rule which is usually strictly enforced as it is seen as necessary to allow public authorities to carry out their functions without on-going fear of litigation. The question here however is when does the clock start ticking?

Once a review is initiated there are three main grounds on which a decision can be challenged:

 • First, on the basis that it was illegal – this means that the Fire Authority/ Scheme manager has acted beyond the powers granted to them by parliament[ultra vires], or they have misunderstood the law.

 • Second, because it was irrational – it is not enough to show that a decision was unreasonable, it must be so outrageous that no sensible man-in-the-street who had applied his mind to the question could have arrived at such a stupid decision; a decision could also be disproportionate in that it sought to dispossess an FSV of his possession, his pension(s) which would be a direct breach of his Human Rights under the Convention.

 • Third, the decision may have been procedurally unfair – if for example the Fire Authority did not act reasonably at any stage, for example, by a failure to seek or consult an objective third party in a public consultation to review their initial decision then this would be procedurally unfair.

If a decision is successfully challenged a Court will usually quash the original decision thus making it void and unenforceable in law and/or prohibit an authority from acting in a particular way.

The Fire Authority will then be forced to remake the decision, even if that means making the same decision but using the correct and reasonable procedures. Damages and aggravated financial redress will usually follow against the Fire Authority.

 So the bottom line is that the HRA has a distinctive and wide ranging role when it comes to the protection of an FSV’s possession[his pensions] and the manner in which his rights to enjoy that possession, whether in peace or in dispute, are protected by the Convention.

This Act had a difficult birth reflected in the fact that though the ‘White Paper’(draft) of this Act was first published in 1998 (it was described as ‘almost to good to be true’, and it was); it was not until after it had been substantially neutered by Parliament under a Labour Government led by Prime Minister Blair who actually introduced it,  that the Act was finally placed on the Statute Book in November 2000. Go Here.

All governments and politicians love keeping secrets from those they hypocritically describe as the ‘proles’ they are meant to be serving. A politician can best be described as someone who will send your son to war, but not his own…

Prime Minister Blair in time was hoisted on his own petard, so much so in fact, that later he gave evidence to a Parliamentary Committee reviewing the FOIA, supporting the revision/amendment of ‘his’ own Act for his own personal protection against embarrassing  ‘information’ which would have revealed his war mongering in Iraq. He once described the Act as “One of the biggest mistakes of his career”…

This set the example and tone of bare faced corruption which local authorities and Fire Authorities pursue today.

Nevertheless this ‘toothless’ watered down Act broadly offers 2 types of access to information:

Firstly, seeking general information under the FOIA whereby any person, a third party, including a member of the general public [FSVs] can ask a Fire Authority 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 is normally a (maximum) £10.0 fee for this service as stipulated by the Act.

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 subject[individual] by law no matter who or how those records are retained; and it 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 ask questions about or to have a copy of another individual’s pay[unless published]; pension records; or personal[Service] record files because the Act bars such an application .

Because this Act has been so hacked about by the ‘secrets keepers’ its complexity and thus its ‘escape holes’ for Local Authorities has grown to the point that the Act is weighted against the ‘truth seekers’.  This is a particularly complex Act because of the layer upon layer of amendments but taking no chances that they may have to give an honest accounting Fire Authorities and Local Authorities then employ professional ‘data protection managers’ which we the taxpayer pay for whose sole task it is to defend them from giving a public accounting of their secret actions.

Their data managers are expected to play the ‘games’ of exploitation of ‘holes’ in the Act; to freely give their ‘interpretation’ concerning what this and that might mean; to delay and obfuscation [playing stupid or incompetent neither of which is difficult for Fire Authorities]; to ignore with impunity statutory time frames in which they are required to supply or deny[with explanation] the information; to willfully ignore correspondence and if the occasion demands it using simple and excessive falsehood ~ mendacity.

Bring on the whistle-blowers who have integrity by comparison.

The whole objective of those who should provide a prompt simple answer is twofold, firstly to provide justification for the disproportionate salary they receive which underpins their grandiose title usually involving the words ‘data protection’, which begs the question, from whom?; and secondly because they see themselves as the holders of the organisations’ ‘secrets’ this attitude brings with it a reflex predestined response of delay and obfuscation.

They see democracy as an opponent until, one day, they find themselves as an applicant for information. 

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 the Act which is yet another wilful and flagrant breach of the law, that is until the matter lands them in Court.

It is usual at this point for the Information Commissioner Office 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 and expensive Information Commissioner who has the powers to enforce his and the Public’s will but daily fudges the issue unless it suits his annual cynical accounting purposes but with a little ingenuity the information required can still be ‘teased’ out of a ‘system’ diametrically opposed to democracy.

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 Champaign 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 FSVs would do well to spend a few hours on their new website before attempting to use this Act. Go Here.

This Act, to be read in conjunction with the Pension Regulators draft code of Practice No:14[due in April 2014] introduces the word ‘governance’ into the lexicon of Firefighters pension practitioners.

It identifies the standards of normal civility and decency which the Law and the Regulator will require from these ‘experts’ from this point forward and a commentary of the history and future impact of these two documents is dealt with in detail in the Chapter of ‘Governance’ on this website.

These Regulations which became new law in April 2014 are a collation, 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, to supply ‘information’ including requests/queries to FSVs . These Regulations are dealt with more fully in the Chapter ‘Asking Pension Questions’. Go Here.