Archive 6 of IBM UK's radical downgrade :  AMIPP Forums (Message Boards) The fastest message board... ever.
of its pension provision. YOU CAN NO LONGER POST HERE! This is now an archive 
Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement.
Posted by: Eddy (IP Logged)
Date: 07 February 2014 10:39PM

I got my 2014 pension statement recently.

They now quote two best years final pensionable earnings dates. One for April 2011. One for December 2013. For both these dates the earnings are the same - i.e frozen at the point when salary increases were no longer added to the BYFPE..

They have applied a statuary underpin and ERDF to allow for inflation from April 2011 on all ages from 50 to 65.

Except for age 60 and 62.

For ages 60 and 62 there is no ERDF reduction because of the earlier court case ruling. HOWEVER, there is also no inflation uplift (underpin) because they use December 2013 Best Years Final Pensionable earnings. And of course there has been no inflation since then!!! Quoting the first court case as the reason.

My understanding of the court case was that employees could retire at 60 with no reduction. By using a December 2013 date they avoid 6% Statutory Underpin uplift (i.e. the inflation since April 2011) and effectively give a reduced pension.

My worry is that this is an underhand move to set a lower 'age 60' reference pension which they will then deduct 3% as per the old rules - i.e. if they loose the case. Hence screwing everyone out of 6%.

Anyone else spotted this?

Any comments from those who know more about the first case?



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 12 February 2014 08:47AM by Eddy.



Subject Views Written By Posted
  Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 3307 Eddy 07 February 2014 10:39PM
  Re: Pension Statements - A strange CPI Issue 1535 ImGone 08 February 2014 11:35AM
  Re: Pension Statements - A strange CPI Issue 1425 Mad Dog 09 February 2014 05:52PM
  Re: Pension Statements - A strange CPI Issue 1688 Eddy 09 February 2014 08:26PM
  Re: Pension Statements - A strange CPI Issue 1314 Mad Dog 10 February 2014 12:07AM
  Re: Pension Statements - A strange CPI Issue 1398 Eddy 10 February 2014 07:47AM
  Re: Pension Statements - A strange CPI Issue 1962 CeeGee 11 February 2014 04:13PM
  Re: Pension Statements - A strange CPI Issue 1318 Eddy 10 February 2014 04:16PM
  Re: Pension Statements - A strange CPI Issue 1325 Mad Dog 10 February 2014 05:44PM
  Re: Pension Statements - A strange CPI Issue 1301 Eddy 11 February 2014 08:43AM
  Re: Pension Statements - A strange CPI Issue 1221 Mad Dog 11 February 2014 06:52PM
  Re: Pension Statements - A strange CPI Issue 1196 Eddy 11 February 2014 05:57PM
  Re: Pension Statements - A strange CPI Issue 1163 Mad Dog 11 February 2014 06:44PM
  Re: Pension Statements - A strange CPI Issue 1185 Ace Buzz 11 February 2014 07:14PM
  Re: Pension Statements - A strange CPI Issue 1293 Mad Dog 11 February 2014 07:34PM
  Re: Pension Statements - A strange CPI Issue 1255 CeeGee 11 February 2014 09:49PM
  Re: Pension Statements - A strange CPI Issue 1382 Ace Buzz 12 February 2014 06:21AM
  Re: Pension Statements - A strange CPI Issue 1360 CeeGee 12 February 2014 03:06PM
  Re: Pension Statements - A strange CPI Issue 1233 CeeGee 24 February 2014 08:05AM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM sidesteps first court judgement. 1496 Eddy 11 February 2014 10:15PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM sidesteps first court judgement. 1441 thoms 12 February 2014 07:22AM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM sidesteps first court judgement. 1270 ImGone 12 February 2014 05:01PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM sidesteps first court judgement. 1285 Mad Dog 12 February 2014 05:21PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1315 Eddy 12 February 2014 05:40PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1247 Mad Dog 12 February 2014 05:48PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1248 Eddy 12 February 2014 05:59PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1225 jerry 12 February 2014 08:56PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1268 Slide Rule 12 February 2014 09:13PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1237 Mad Dog 12 February 2014 09:47PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1478 Anonymous User 13 February 2014 09:21AM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1224 Slide Rule 13 February 2014 10:32AM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1265 scunnered 13 February 2014 10:40AM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1284 Anonymous User 13 February 2014 11:11AM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1219 Mad Dog 14 February 2014 04:09PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1323 GrumpyGuts 13 February 2014 08:15AM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1503 Mad Dog 13 February 2014 09:33AM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1264 GrumpyGuts 13 February 2014 09:39AM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1475 Mad Dog 13 February 2014 10:53AM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1331 blaster 14 February 2014 03:19PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1313 CeeGee 14 February 2014 07:23PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1197 scunnered 17 February 2014 03:08PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1224 growingold 14 February 2014 08:57PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1295 Eddy 15 February 2014 07:51AM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1276 Ace Buzz 15 February 2014 08:51AM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1244 ImGone 15 February 2014 12:07PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1204 Mike Eacott 15 February 2014 11:44AM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1239 dave 16 February 2014 08:54AM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1281 Mad Dog 16 February 2014 09:30AM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1272 dave 16 February 2014 10:55AM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1220 goner 16 February 2014 06:59PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1318 dave 16 February 2014 10:45PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1296 Ace Buzz 17 February 2014 07:21AM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1222 goner 17 February 2014 05:10PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1309 dave 17 February 2014 09:54PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1311 ImGone 18 February 2014 11:34AM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1286 itsnotthe companyIjoined 18 February 2014 12:14PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1326 Mike Eacott 18 February 2014 12:55PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1295 JACK05 18 February 2014 02:55PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1341 Anonymous User 18 February 2014 05:14PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1415 ImGone 19 February 2014 02:05PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1348 dave 18 February 2014 03:32PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1335 Eddy 24 February 2014 10:55AM


Sorry, you do not have permission to post/reply in this forum.
This forum powered by Phorum.