THE UNARGUABLE CASE FOR PAYING PRE-1997 “PAID FOR” INFLATION PROTECTION
Terry Monk
The Pensions Action Group (PAG)
We are grateful to Age Wage for covering this continuing and increasing problem for FAS pensioners .
Background
I worked in the Financial Services Industry for around 50 years and from 1999 was a director of Independent Trustee Services (ITS) that followed a period with Bradstock Group where there were problems including the “Bradstock Compromise “ which was agreed to save the company but at the expense of those yet to reach their NRD in 2002
For me my NRD was 2003 and I ended up with initially a pension on wind up of £3,500 rather than the expected £35,000 !!
Fortunately, through ITS, I had first hand experience of many other schemes – working at that time with the DWP.
History
Through ITS , other schemes I became aware of the impact on thousands of others (140,000)and as a result became close to a group including Ros Altmann and workers from many schemes including ASW , Deion , Heath Lambert and many others.
To bring our plight to the attention of Government and the press our “Stripped of our Pensions” became headlines in the media.
There was no protection scheme in place although such protection was a requirement of Article 8 of the ECJ
In 2004, the then Government tried to minimise their costs by introducing a slowly improving compensation scheme (2004 ).
It took the “Robbins and Others “ case in the ECJ to bring about FAS and indeed the PPF. However, there were many failings with them – indeed , to this day they still exist .
Current failings
This brings us to the failings which followed the 2007 Andrew Young review which tried to bring FAS in line with the PPF.
This stopped annuitisation with residual assets being passed to the Treasury t0 help Gordons Browns deficit (sound familiar !!)
We are told repeatedly that FAS is funded by the taxpayer however FAS assets were either with Insurers under FAS 1 or ,via the PPF, to the Treasury in FAS
Those assets included employer and employee contributions which were over £2bn. Had the assets been ring fenced (as is the case with the PPF) then their existence would not have contributed to the current PPF surplus. They would be used for members rather than initially for a reduction in the levy and most certainly not for investment in Government pet projects
Richard Nicholl and myself gave evidence to the WPSC supported by the excellent Stephen Timms. At the same session were Roger Sainsbury (from another campaign group) plus the excellent Sara Protheroe and Oliver Morley of the PPF
That was in late 2023. Paul Maynard gave evidence after we had met him in 2024 and we understand he had the backing of the DWP and Treasury although we do not know the details . In spite of recommendations of the WPSC the improvement never came to light. There was a change of Government with further delays and eventually PAG together with members of the ASW scheme met the current Minister
Still nothing has happened and the Ministers appearance with the WPSC has just added confusion with no sign of clarity. Letters take up to 6 months to get replies (if at all)
Members cannot wait and since the PAG presentation in 2023 over 4,000 members have died – as most are in their 70’s and 80’s.
We have had to fight for FAS.
Robbins and others
Hampshire v the PPF
Hughes v the PPF
It has cost millions for justice SO FAR . Government has been ignoring demonstrations , meetings , thousands of letters (many receiving cut and past DWP replies) and meetings refused by Guy Opperman and Laura Trott.
Examples of individual losses
The impact of the loss of “paid for” increases means the following for key committee members. These are examples of individual cases
ASW 24 years without inflation protection; only 4 years with inflation protection
Other examples;
20 years pre ninety-seven and post -3 years
24.5 years pre; -4 years post
12 years pre zero post 97 (Bradstock)
19 pre zero post
This is devasting for members and spouses.
Conclusion and action
Please help us. The pension industry has grown and thrived though FAS and PPF
We compliment the PPF who we believe are on our side.
The Prime Minister stated recently “You can Trust Labour on Pensions” !!!!
For more information on our twenty plus years campaign www.pensionstheft.org
Pensions Action Group – Campaigning for Pensions Justice
I know that Andrew Young reads a few of these blogs, in case he is this time perhaps
Torsten can repeat what Hanes Purnell did and ask Andy Young to carry out a review to find a suitable solution given the objectives and the constraints.
FAS pensioners ask?
WHY ARE WE SO DIFFERENT?
The government continue to fully funded Civil service/public sector pensions.
The failed banks pensions
The Royal mail pensions
The coal miners pensions
and last but not least the politicians own pensions
All these are funded by the taxpayer………….us……
WE ALL HAD THE SAME WRITTEN PROTECTION WHEN WE WERE PERSUADED TO
INVEST IN OUR PENSIONS……..THE GOVENMENTS OF YESTERDAY AND TODAY CONTINUE TO DENY US OUR RIGHTFUL PENSIONS…..
The Government must not just treat this subject like previous governments, talking a lot but doing little or nothing, relying on most people’s lack of understanding of the complexity of pensions and an almost complete disinterest in the lack of morals of politicians who have never stood by their promises that the pensions of FAS members were guaranteed and safe.
How can the government hope to restore faith in pensions when there is a worked example of people who followed government advice, did the right thing, yet lost up to 50% of their benefits through no fault of their own. Governments of all persuasions appear to have been talking this out, in the hope that the problem will go away when we’ve all died off. ‘Trusting the pensions promise’ does not seem to be a good strategy if our experience is anything to go by.
All governments have failed to implement the findings of the Pension Ombudsman report in 2006 which according to the BBC report of 15th MARCH 2006 said that the govt gave inaccurate advice about the security of final pension schemes and members should be compensated.
Here we are nearly 20 years later with the WPSC saying that there should be considered a change in rules regarding those that are suffering from no pre 1997 increases .Most of whom are in our 70 and 80 s and have not received increases for nearly 20 years on our pre 1997 service.The govt says it is complicated can it really be that complicated after all they have had years to look into it?