Posted by Nigel Reddick on 03 October 2000 at 16:51:55:

In addition to the issue of robbing the C-plan to fund the M-plan,
I have been furious for years about other C-plan issues - the
mis-selling of this plan when it started (no mention of C-plan
cap)and the discrimination against long service employees which
the cap implements (effectively, little or no pension for service
up to age 27 or 28). I intended to write to the Ombudsman or
whoever just after my imminent retirement. Is anyone else active
on this front as well as the other stuff?

Posted by Alan Palmer on 07 October 2000 at 12:48:27:

In Reply to: Scope of C-Plan Dissatisfaction posted by Nigel Reddick on 03 October 2000 at 16:51:55:

I too was caught by the C Plan long service cap. The cap was NOT originally in the plan. It was brought in 1-2 years later. My guess is that it was a response to a government limit on the percentage pension anybody could have at various ages up to 65. I firmly believe it should have been taken off (ie reverting to NO cap) once the government removed its limit. I put that to pensions dept before I took a package, but didn't get anywhere! Before leaving I found out (it doesn't appear to be in any general circulation document) that if a pension is NOT taken immediately the capped years are given back a year at a time. I did that but only for one year as IBM did not keep to other agreements and I got worried.

Posted by Ivor Horton on 07 October 2000 at 13:20:43:

In Reply to: Re: Scope of C-Plan Dissatisfaction posted by Alan Palmer on 07 October 2000 at 12:48:27:

I had the same experience. I had quite a long correspondence with Pensions Dept and the finance director but got nowhere. Basically it seems that the cap arbitrarily removed benefit accruing from years of service in excess of some number (around 27 years I vaguely recall). It was nothing to do with government limits so far as I could see. It didn't seem at all reasonable that several years of pensionable service could accrue no pension benefits, even though contributions had been made as part of the contract of employment. Someone with several years less service and the same final salary would get the same pension. The point was not accepted though - 'that's the rule" was the response.