UK Pensions (2018)

[denby45]

On 9/1/2019 at 9:22 PM, sanemax said:

Just been in touch with the HMRC this week and to receive the UK *second grade * pension of currently 100 Pound a week , you have to have paid *grade 2 * national  insurance for 10 years (which is about 150 Pounds a year) and you can do it all online , but you will need a UK address and phone number .

   The full pension, you need 35 years of contributions 

Sanemax  can you clarify a bit. I though I was up to date on state pension but I have never heard of "second grade" pension. Can you elaborate.

 

Also I agree with the 150 pounds bit for class 2 voluntary contributions as that is exactly what I am paying. However I do know you don't have to have a UK address to pay these contributions. So do you mean you cannot pay it online unless you have a UK address?

 

 

Thanks

 

Den

[khundon]

On 4/13/2019 at 6:43 AM, UKresonant said:

Basic state pension, with 35 years NI record £6718.40. Then it depends on the type of NI contributions. The headline New State Pension can be £8767.20p.a. (which I would need 46 years NI to obtain). So somewhere between the two figure for 35+years NI record. 

 

https://www.which.co.uk/news/2018/11/state-pension-rates-confirmed-for-2019-20-how-much-will-you-get/

My State pension which started in April 2017 is now £221 per week. I started work in 1968 and bought my own stamps and through the years have also been on PAYE for NI.

I retired early In 2001 aged 47 but continued to pay full NI contributions.

I questioned my State Pension forecast in early 2017 with DWP and was assured twice that I was entitled to an extra payment because I was between the 2 pension schemes, so I was paid extra so I wasn’t penalised due to the pension scheme. The DWP even sent me a full breakdown of each years NI contributions to prove I was eligible to the extra payments.

I get an increase each year because I claim residency in the UK.  

I believe there are around 100k pensioners who are getting the extra guaranteed payments in the UK. 

[sandyf]

On 9/21/2019 at 7:20 PM, khundon said:

My State pension which started in April 2017 is now £221 per week. I started work in 1968 and bought my own stamps and through the years have also been on PAYE for NI.

I retired early In 2001 aged 47 but continued to pay full NI contributions.

I questioned my State Pension forecast in early 2017 with DWP and was assured twice that I was entitled to an extra payment because I was between the 2 pension schemes, so I was paid extra so I wasn’t penalised due to the pension scheme. The DWP even sent me a full breakdown of each years NI contributions to prove I was eligible to the extra payments.

I get an increase each year because I claim residency in the UK.  

I believe there are around 100k pensioners who are getting the extra guaranteed payments in the UK. 

That is right, the government said that following the change pensions would be based on the higher amount as calculated under both old and new schemes to take into account additional pension contributions that had been paid. Additional pension contributions stopped in 2016 so the amount to be considered will decline as the years go by.

If my pension was not frozen I would be on a similar amount. Although I am 5 years ahead I was self employed for a few years which would not have contributed anything to the additional pension as that was related to earnings.

The whole situation was quite complex and can be quite confusing for those coming to retirement age in the years following the change.

[evadgib]

On 9/1/2019 at 6:47 PM, evadgib said:

How's this for "No new agreements"?

 

Uprating guarantee for UK State Pension recipients living in EU

Another example:

 

Government takes steps to protect healthcare access for UK nationals living in the EU after 31 October

 

(The 'off topic' brigade should note the 2nd to last paragraph)

[evadgib]

On 9/10/2019 at 11:34 AM, evadgib said:

The 'votes for life' bill died at the prorogation last night & will need to start all over again. If it had passed it (5M+ disenfranchised Brits worldwide) might have made a difference in the forthcoming election.

This, along with the 'Frozen' debate, reminds me yet again of playing

as a kid ????

Todays ruling in the supreme court means that this bill isn't yet dead after all.

[sandyf]

New release from the government on pensions for those in the EU.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/brexit-and-pensions-uprating?utm_source=f619ed0f-7174-4582-b6d1-61c8230592b9&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=govuk-notifications&utm_content=daily

 

"During the 3-year period, the UK government plans to negotiate a new arrangement with the EU to ensure that uprating continues."

 

Why should pensioners in the EU get the rises when there is no agreement in place. This must be grounds for the frozen pensions fiasco to be brought back to parliament. Unfortunately for that you need someone in your corner and no one is particularly interested.

[evadgib]

From HMG as per Sandy's post and in the 'Brexit' pin:

 

Brexit and pensions uprating

 

And from today's Express...

 

[cleopatra2]

On 9/29/2019 at 11:07 AM, sandyf said:

New release from the government on pensions for those in the EU.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/brexit-and-pensions-uprating?utm_source=f619ed0f-7174-4582-b6d1-61c8230592b9&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=govuk-notifications&utm_content=daily

 

"During the 3-year period, the UK government plans to negotiate a new arrangement with the EU to ensure that uprating continues."

 

Why should pensioners in the EU get the rises when there is no agreement in place. This must be grounds for the frozen pensions fiasco to be brought back to parliament. Unfortunately for that you need someone in your corner and no one is particularly interested.

Would it not be worthwhile seeking a Judicial review to see if the government can lawfully selectively uprate pensions and provide healthcare if no agreements to do so exist

 

[billzant]

Cleopatra, It is my understanding that frozen pensions organisations have tried the legal route - certainly in Europe. It is also my understanding that the European ruling was of the nature The British government is not breaking any EU laws with frozen pensions because it is an internal government matter. They considered it is unfair but cannot do anything about it. I believe it was the ICBP who took it to the EU.

Are you suggesting that post-Brexit a government (non-partisan) whose general attitude is inertia it's always been this way why should we pay any sort of money to change with a judicial review when there is no legal reason for a change. Judicial does not mean unjust, frozen pensions are unfair not illegal.

 

[cleopatra2]

13 hours ago, billzant said:

Cleopatra, It is my understanding that frozen pensions organisations have tried the legal route - certainly in Europe. It is also my understanding that the European ruling was of the nature The British government is not breaking any EU laws with frozen pensions because it is an internal government matter. They considered it is unfair but cannot do anything about it. I believe it was the ICBP who took it to the EU.

Are you suggesting that post-Brexit a government (non-partisan) whose general attitude is inertia it's always been this way why should we pay any sort of money to change with a judicial review when there is no legal reason for a change. Judicial does not mean unjust, frozen pensions are unfair not illegal.

 

I am asking on what legal basis can a minister make such an arrangement .

Prior to Brexit , the relevant EU social security agreements are in force.

On a no deal scenario no such agreements will exist

 

Post Brexit agreements may be put in place. The government notices suggest this will not be the case immediately following a no deal.

 

The court case you refer said it was for government to decide what agreements it wish to make and with who.

This is different to deciding who gets and who is refused pension uprating if no agreements exist.

 

 

It would be intetesting to understand the ICBP position.

Do they intend to take a lead or wait for various states to apply pressure ln the UK during Post Brexit trade talks

I am thinking here of the big 2 Amustralia and Canada

[sandyf]

13 hours ago, billzant said:

Cleopatra, It is my understanding that frozen pensions organisations have tried the legal route - certainly in Europe. It is also my understanding that the European ruling was of the nature The British government is not breaking any EU laws with frozen pensions because it is an internal government matter. They considered it is unfair but cannot do anything about it. I believe it was the ICBP who took it to the EU.

Are you suggesting that post-Brexit a government (non-partisan) whose general attitude is inertia it's always been this way why should we pay any sort of money to change with a judicial review when there is no legal reason for a change. Judicial does not mean unjust, frozen pensions are unfair not illegal.

 

Yes the legal arguments have been examined in the past and supported the government under the situation at the time. I think it is about 40 years now since the government said it would not be pursuing any further reciprocal agreements.

Brexit changes the situation and in the case of a deal the government could argue the case that it is not a new agreement, just a continuation of the old one having been reworked, making it difficult to contest.

A no deal scenario is a different ball game, the current agreement will end and it will take some time to negotiate a new agreement.

The question then arises as to why a new agreement can be made with one entity and not others and also as to why some pensions can be paid at a higher rate when there is no agreement in place. The government has always maintained that there must be a reciprocal agreement in place to get the rises.

[cleopatra2]

1 hour ago, sandyf said:

Yes the legal arguments have been examined in the past and supported the government under the situation at the time. I think it is about 40 years now since the government said it would not be pursuing any further reciprocal agreements.

Brexit changes the situation and in the case of a deal the government could argue the case that it is not a new agreement, just a continuation of the old one having been reworked, making it difficult to contest.

A no deal scenario is a different ball game, the current agreement will end and it will take some time to negotiate a new agreement.

The question then arises as to why a new agreement can be made with one entity and not others and also as to why some pensions can be paid at a higher rate when there is no agreement in place. The government has always maintained that there must be a reciprocal agreement in place to get the rises.

It is not a question of the government ssying it.

UK law states the case

[sandyf]

11 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

It is not a question of the government ssying it.

UK law states the case

The law is only a documented version of a government statement. There will need to be a change in the law to support this statement from the link I posted previously.

 

"The government is sending out letters outlining that even if we leave without a deal, pensions for those in the EU will be uprated for a further 3 years – an increase of at least 2.5% annually for the duration of this Parliament, worth up to £200 a year per person."

 

The problem is it will get voted through as part of a package and unlikely to be challenged.

It should be noted that "the duration of this parliament" is now in question.

[cleopatra2]

29 minutes ago, sandyf said:

The law is only a documented version of a government statement. There will need to be a change in the law to support this statement from the link I posted previously.

 

"The government is sending out letters outlining that even if we leave without a deal, pensions for those in the EU will be uprated for a further 3 years – an increase of at least 2.5% annually for the duration of this Parliament, worth up to £200 a year per person."

 

The problem is it will get voted through as part of a package and unlikely to be challenged.

It should be noted that "the duration of this parliament" is now in question.

Government statements do not automatically acquire the status of UK law.

If this was the case there would never be any JR

The existing UK law is Overseas residents do not pension recieve uprating.

The government have decided in the scenario of no deal UK pensioners will recieve upratings untill such an agreement comes into force. 

The question that the ICPB should be asking is why treatment of  British pensioners in the EU more favourable than pensioners in the ROW.

[billzant]

Cleopatra said "The existing UK law is Overseas residents do not pension recieve uprating.

The government have decided in the scenario of no deal UK pensioners will recieve upratings untill such an agreement comes into force. 

The question that the ICPB should be asking is why treatment of  British pensioners in the EU more favourable than pensioners in the ROW."

 

It is my understanding that there is an annual uprating bill that goes through parliament every year, and that this bill is what makes the law. It is this bill that the APPG on frozen pensions is trying to change (prior to the Brexit upheaval). 

http://frozenbritishpensions.org/a-solution/

 

It is also my understanding that this annual bill contains a whole load of regulations which get perfunctorily passed, and our pensions remain frozen "perfunctorily" ie no-one except frozen pensioners really care. Inertia.

If this bill is law, isn't Judicial review a red herring?

 

It is also my understanding that the ICPB have been asking that very question about inconsistency after the EU pensioners got 3 years uprating whatever happens with Brexit.

[cleopatra2]

2 hours ago, billzant said:

Cleopatra said "The existing UK law is Overseas residents do not pension recieve uprating.

The government have decided in the scenario of no deal UK pensioners will recieve upratings untill such an agreement comes into force. 

The question that the ICPB should be asking is why treatment of  British pensioners in the EU more favourable than pensioners in the ROW."

 

It is my understanding that there is an annual uprating bill that goes through parliament every year, and that this bill is what makes the law. It is this bill that the APPG on frozen pensions is trying to change (prior to the Brexit upheaval). 

http://frozenbritishpensions.org/a-solution/

 

It is also my understanding that this annual bill contains a whole load of regulations which get perfunctorily passed, and our pensions remain frozen "perfunctorily" ie no-one except frozen pensioners really care. Inertia.

If this bill is law, isn't Judicial review a red herring?

 

It is also my understanding that the ICPB have been asking that very question about inconsistency after the EU pensioners got 3 years uprating whatever happens with Brexit.

In the case of Brexit no deal the government has decided to uprate pensions in the EU , irrespective if the annual regulation being passed or not.

The regulation being passed continues the practice of pensioners who are overseas residents not receiving the uprating.

The British pensioners resident in the EU will still receive uprating whilst those elsewhere will not.

[DILLIGAD]

In the case of Brexit no deal the government has decided to uprate pensions in the EU , irrespective if the annual regulation being passed or not.
The regulation being passed continues the practice of pensioners who are overseas residents not receiving the uprating.
The British pensioners resident in the EU will still receive uprating whilst those elsewhere will not.

Not all, who reside elsewhere, which is worse than if it was all of them!
Crazy!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[cleopatra2]

2 hours ago, DILLIGAD said:

Not all, who reside elsewhere, which is worse than if it was all of them!
Crazy!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That is the crux of the argument.

When the Carson case was going through the courts  the government stated it only uprated overseas where it was legally obliged to do so. 

The government has continued to point this out o  numerous occasions.

The claimants in Carson could not give an example of an overseas uprating that did not come about through an agreement.

We now have a situation that the government is going to uprate pension in the EU and there is no legal obligation to do so.

[billzant]

"When the Carson case was going through the courts  the government stated it only uprated overseas where it was legally obliged to do so. " Cleopatra, what was the Carson case?

 

You proposed a judicial review. Above I explained my understanding of an annual legal process. EU is maybe a one-off, why would pushing a Judicial review help?

 

[cleopatra2]

9 hours ago, billzant said:

"When the Carson case was going through the courts  the government stated it only uprated overseas where it was legally obliged to do so. " Cleopatra, what was the Carson case?

 

You proposed a judicial review. Above I explained my understanding of an annual legal process. EU is maybe a one-off, why would pushing a Judicial review help?

 

As i explained the annual regulation of uprating is moot for pension uprating in the EU but not RoW. UK pensions in the EU will be uprated where there is no apparent legal basis to do so. 

Where is the provisions to do this.

Why is treating the EU a special case that justifies favourable treatment as opposed to any other UK citizen resident RoW.

[sandyf]

21 hours ago, cleopatra2 said:

Government statements do not automatically acquire the status of UK law.

If this was the case there would never be any JR

The existing UK law is Overseas residents do not pension recieve uprating.

The government have decided in the scenario of no deal UK pensioners will recieve upratings untill such an agreement comes into force. 

The question that the ICPB should be asking is why treatment of  British pensioners in the EU more favourable than pensioners in the ROW.

"Government statements do not automatically acquire the status of UK law."

You are nit picking - all UK law started life as a government statement.

 

"The existing UK law is Overseas residents do not pension recieve uprating."

That is not true, some overseas residents do receive the annual increments. There is no law that deals with pension increments. The issue is embedded in the Social Security Act and each year when it comes before parliament no one wants to start dissecting the Act so it just gets voted through again. The reciprocal agreement is based on the Social Security Act, not pensions.

When the UK made the agreement with Canada, Canadian pensions could not be exported so that part of the Act was excluded. The Canadians then changed their law but the UK was not prepared to amend the agreement leaving expats in Canada with a reciprocal agreement and no increments.

 

"The government have decided in the scenario of no deal UK pensioners will recieve upratings untill such an agreement comes into force. "

The government has stated that will be the position but it is up to parliament to make the decision. It is highly likely that a Bill covering a multitude of brexit issues will be rushed through parliament as a damage limitation exercise. There will be no single vote on this issue.

 

The question of "favourable" has been addressed in the past, only the question of legality means anything. The brexit situation and support for the EU expats has brought about several discriminatory statements from government on this issue and justification based on discrimination would be a legal matter. Unfortunately I do not see a "Gina" on the horizon.

 

[cleopatra2]

30 minutes ago, sandyf said:

"Government statements do not automatically acquire the status of UK law."

You are nit picking - all UK law started life as a government statement.

 

"The existing UK law is Overseas residents do not pension recieve uprating."

That is not true, some overseas residents do receive the annual increments. There is no law that deals with pension increments. The issue is embedded in the Social Security Act and each year when it comes before parliament no one wants to start dissecting the Act so it just gets voted through again. The reciprocal agreement is based on the Social Security Act, not pensions.

When the UK made the agreement with Canada, Canadian pensions could not be exported so that part of the Act was excluded. The Canadians then changed their law but the UK was not prepared to amend the agreement leaving expats in Canada with a reciprocal agreement and no increments.

 

"The government have decided in the scenario of no deal UK pensioners will recieve upratings untill such an agreement comes into force. "

The government has stated that will be the position but it is up to parliament to make the decision. It is highly likely that a Bill covering a multitude of brexit issues will be rushed through parliament as a damage limitation exercise. There will be no single vote on this issue.

 

The question of "favourable" has been addressed in the past, only the question of legality means anything. The brexit situation and support for the EU expats has brought about several discriminatory statements from government on this issue and justification based on discrimination would be a legal matter. Unfortunately I do not see a "Gina" on the horizon.

 

I will address one point

The claim that there is no UK law preventing uprating pensionz for overseas residents.

You actually go on to quote the actual act that does prevent such uprating.

The reason why countries with reciprocal arrangements recieve upratings is due to international agreements take precedence over domestic laws.

[billzant]

6 hours ago, sandyf said:

The brexit situation and support for the EU expats has brought about several discriminatory statements from government on this issue and justification based on discrimination would be a legal matter.

Sandy, why would discrimination be a legal matter? This is a genuine question.

It is a given that frozen pensions is unjust but unjust and illegal are not the same. The government has shown discrimination with regards to the EU so that is a further injustice. As the law with regards to our frozen pensions is the Social Security Act, no law is broken so it is not illegal.

Why would the situation of increased discrimination now be a legal matter?

[billzant]

5 hours ago, cleopatra2 said:

The reason why countries with reciprocal arrangements recieve upratings is due to international agreements take precedence over domestic laws.

Cleopatra, can you explain this to me? Why do international agreements have precedence over UK laws? Are the reciprocal agreements referred to in the Social Security Act? 

[sandyf]

48 minutes ago, billzant said:

Sandy, why would discrimination be a legal matter? This is a genuine question.

It's a fine line.

The government has set a precedent and the arguments put forward in the past have been insufficient to overcome that precedent. The government is about to bring that precedent to an end so the door may be unlocked.

Discrimination became a legal issue a long time ago with the introduction of the Race Relations Act and since then a variety of other factors have come into play. If someone is favoured because of their age,sex,disability,nationality etc that is unlawful discrimination.

This is part of the Amber Rudd statement

"Nearly half a million people live in Europe, many in Spain and France, who receive a UK State Pension because they’ve worked hard, paid their National Insurance and helped make our country the success it is today."

 

It could be construed that if the government is going to favour EU expats with a new agreement on the basis of where they live may well be unlawful discrimination as all other expats satisfy the criteria she has outlined.

they’ve worked hard, paid their National Insurance and helped make our country the success it is today."

 

At the end of the day just an opinion.

[sandyf]

1 hour ago, billzant said:

Cleopatra, can you explain this to me? Why do international agreements have precedence over UK laws? Are the reciprocal agreements referred to in the Social Security Act? 

They don't, it was a contradiction in terms. If someone lives abroad there are no applicable domestic laws.

If you live in a country that does not have an agreement you are effectively outside the scope of social security. 

If you live in a country where an agreement exists you are within the scope of social security as applicable under that agreement, as are the citizens of that country that live in the UK.

 

"Are the reciprocal agreements referred to in the Social Security Act?"

No, it is the other way round.

[billzant]

Sandy,

 

Thanks for the clear answers to both questions.

 

Discrimination against the race relations act, I would like it to be so for personal gain but it does seem unlikely. Frozen pensions unjust but I don't see legal discrimination.

 

So the way forward is changing the social security act as the APPG have been trying unsuccessfully to do. 

 

I asked a friend in East London who was active in the labour party if he would raise the issue. He did and found sympathy because there were many people who had come to the UK after post-war recruiting, worked their lives here, and gone back to the Caribbean to be with wider family. Their pensions are frozen.

 

http://frozenbritishpensions.org/a-solution/

 

 

[cleopatra2]

20 hours ago, billzant said:

Cleopatra, can you explain this to me? Why do international agreements have precedence over UK laws? Are the reciprocal agreements referred to in the Social Security Act? 

For the same reason that double taxation treaties take precedence over domestic laws.

They are agreements between states. 

No reciprocal agreements mentioned in the act.

[cleopatra2]

19 hours ago, sandyf said:

It's a fine line.

The government has set a precedent and the arguments put forward in the past have been insufficient to overcome that precedent. The government is about to bring that precedent to an end so the door may be unlocked.

Discrimination became a legal issue a long time ago with the introduction of the Race Relations Act and since then a variety of other factors have come into play. If someone is favoured because of their age,sex,disability,nationality etc that is unlawful discrimination.

This is part of the Amber Rudd statement

"Nearly half a million people live in Europe, many in Spain and France, who receive a UK State Pension because they’ve worked hard, paid their National Insurance and helped make our country the success it is today."

 

It could be construed that if the government is going to favour EU expats with a new agreement on the basis of where they live may well be unlawful discrimination as all other expats satisfy the criteria she has outlined.

they’ve worked hard, paid their National Insurance and helped make our country the success it is today."

 

At the end of the day just an opinion.

it is difficult to support the ptoposition that tbe discrimination is unlawfull on the basis of where somebody lives.

Discrimination is not unlawfull in itself. Only the reason or basis for discrimination under certain criteria is unlawfull.

There are numerous examples within the UK whete discrimination occurs based on a persons residency. Immediate example that comes to mind is NHS prescription charges.

[sandyf]

18 hours ago, billzant said:

Discrimination against the race relations act, I would like it to be so for personal gain but it does seem unlikely. Frozen pensions unjust but I don't see legal discrimination.

 

As i said it is a fine line.

The root legislation is the Equality Act 2010 and I appreciate that our situation would not fall under the 9 protected characteristics but that does not rule out use of the said act.

 

A: There is advice and guidance on this website, but it is up to a court to decide if a particular set of circumstances break the law. If you are considering legal action we suggest you find a solicitor or lawyer to help you with your case. In a few instances the Commission may help people with their cases if it is an area of equality that is unclear or if it is a set of circumstances where a clear win would help to improve the lives of many by setting a new precedent in case law.

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/equality-act/equality-act-faqs

 

It should be borne in mind that the last case on frozen pensions was prior to 2010.

In June of this year some women took the government to court over the change in pension age, the challenge being based on discrimination. As it happens I think the ruling is due today, should be interesting.