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 
Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement.
Posted by: Mad Dog (IP Logged)
Date: 13 February 2014 09:33AM

GG - Thanks for your interest, I will attempt to summarise.

(1) The issue affects Hybrid Deferred members. I think that only Hybrid Deferred members will be affected by this, as other currently active members with different status (e.g. Enhanced M) no longer have a DB element to their pension.

(2) The issue relates to the application of CPI uplift to the DB element of the pension. Since April 2011, the DB element of the plan for Hybrid Deferred members was closed to new contributions but its value is supposed to be "protected" from inflationary devaluation by the 'Deferred Underpin', that being the value of your pension as at 5 April 2011 (using Final Pensionable Earnings, pensionable service and State Pension Deductions as at that date) increased by ‘Statutory Revaluation’.

(3) There appear to be two instances in the Jan 2014 statement where the expected Statutory Revaluation has not been applied:

(a) For ages 60 to 63, the 2014 statement shows pension value based on either the Statutory Revaluation or based on no application of ERDF from age 63 (whichever is the higher). Therefore it appears that where IBM is complying with the first court case judgement (no ERDF ages 60 to 63), that benefit is significantly weakened by the absence of Statutory Uplift for those ages.

(b) In the "leaving service benefits" section, the deferred value of the main DB plan has not changed from the last statement (Dec 2012) to the current statement (Jan 2014). Hence no Statutory Uplift is apparent to the leaving service benefit, which as a result is reduced in real terms through the effects of inflation.

In fact the situation described in 3(a) above is more complex than I've summarised, due to some weird and unexplained actions done at age 61 (as AceBuzz has noted). However I think for the sake of this summary that is the essence of the problem.



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 1313 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 1317 Eddy 10 February 2014 04:16PM
  Re: Pension Statements - A strange CPI Issue 1324 Mad Dog 10 February 2014 05:44PM
  Re: Pension Statements - A strange CPI Issue 1300 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 1184 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 1254 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. 1495 Eddy 11 February 2014 10:15PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM sidesteps first court judgement. 1440 thoms 12 February 2014 07:22AM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM sidesteps first court judgement. 1269 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. 1246 Mad Dog 12 February 2014 05:48PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1247 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. 1223 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. 1283 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. 1502 Mad Dog 13 February 2014 09:33AM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1263 GrumpyGuts 13 February 2014 09:39AM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1474 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. 1275 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. 1280 Mad Dog 16 February 2014 09:30AM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1271 dave 16 February 2014 10:55AM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1219 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. 1285 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. 1294 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. 1334 Eddy 24 February 2014 10:55AM


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