I hear that in the U.K. re pensions claw backs.

[Georgealbert]

3 hours ago, MangoKorat said:

Thanks for the history but that doesn't make it right - it only makes it legal as things stand.  Other unfair laws have been challenged and overturned. In my opinion, the law preventing those living abroad (in most countries) is morally illegal.

 

I'm struggling to understand the reasoning behind this rule.  The UK allows increases to be paid to residents living in a country that has a reciprocal agreement.  I'm struggling to understand how having such an agreement would benefit the UK. A Thai citizen, living in the UK would only get a pension corresponding to the amount of any contributions they have made.

 

I'm not due for a pension yet but over the last few years I've cost the NHS a significant amount due to illness, it is also likely that I will need further treatment in the years to come which, if I'm living in Thailand, I will have to fund myself.  It is a given that as people get older, they are more liable to illness and therefore their cost to the country is higher. The UK population is aging so that position is likely to get worse.  People living abroad and paying for their own treatment don't cause the UK to incur those costs and are therefore likley to actually save the UK money.

 

Were we talking about a private pension with a provision for increases over time, there would be no way a private pension provider would be allowed to refuse such increases to a person choosing to live abroad.

 

The amount you pay in determines the amount you get out - that should not be any different for people living abroad.

 

 

At no time, did I saw that the law is fair, I just gave the legal background to why it is there.

 

I am also realistic, to understand, that there is zero political will to unfreeze pensions abroad.

 

Since that first up grade in 1948, the same agreement and response have been used by every government. Many entries in Hansard shows the continued opposition to changing this issue.

 

This is a parliamentary response by Baroness Stedman-Scott on 5 January 2021

 

“The Government has not made an assessment of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Frozen British Pensions 2020 inquiry or its findings. The UK State Pension is payable worldwide to those who meet the qualifying conditions. It is up-rated where there is a legal requirement to do so, for example, where recipients are living in countries where there is a reciprocal agreement that provides for up-rating. The Government has no plans to change the policy on up-rating UK State Pensions overseas; the policy is longstanding and has been supported by successive Governments for over 70 years. The Government understands that people move abroad for many reasons and that this can have an impact on their finances. However, the decision to move abroad remains a personal choice. “
 

Legal challenges,
 

April 2002, Annette Carson, a UK pensioner overseas, challenged the policy of frozen pensions in the English High Court under the Human Rights Act 1998, but the court ruled against.

 

The decision was appealed 

 

Court of Appeal (2003) failed,

 

Appeal to the House of Lords (2005) failed,

 

Appeal to the European Court of Human Rights (2008) failed,

 

Referral to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights then voted by eleven votes to six in 2010, that there had been no discrimination, in the frozen pension policy.

Edited February 29 by Georgealbert

[MangoKorat]

5 hours ago, Georgealbert said:

“The Government has not made an assessment of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Frozen British Pensions 2020 inquiry or its findings.

5 hours ago, Georgealbert said:

At no time, did I saw that the law is fair, I just gave the legal background to why it is there.

I know you didn't and there was no intended crticism in my reply.

 

In your latest reply you refer to the 'All-Party Parliamentary Group on Frozen British Pensions 2020 inquiry' and Baroness Stedman-Scott's response.  Do you know if the government has released the findings of that inquiry?

[Georgealbert]

32 minutes ago, MangoKorat said:

I know you didn't and there was no intended crticism in my reply.

 

In your latest reply you refer to the 'All-Party Parliamentary Group on Frozen British Pensions 2020 inquiry' and Baroness Stedman-Scott's response.  Do you know if the government has released the findings of that inquiry?

Here is the report of the 2020 inquiry.

 

http://frozenbritishpensions.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Frozen-Pensions-APPG-1.pdf

 

The only government response, i could find was from Baroness Stedman-Scott.

 

https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2020-12-17/HL11595
 

The full details of the All Party Parliamentary Group is on this link.

 

http://frozenbritishpensions.org/

Edited February 29 by Georgealbert

[MangoKorat]

It is hardly surprising that people get angry at petty goverment rules on pensions paid to those living outside the UK when the following matters are considered:

 

I was born in Leeds and last year listened to a radio broadcast that stated that Leeds now has 3rd generation people who have never worked.  Not only have those lazy swines been claiming uneployment benefit throughout those 3 generations, you can be sure that they will also have been claiming housing and other benefits.

 

More to the point, I believe that those in receipt of unemployment benefit automatically gain pension credits and will therefore be entitled to the full basic state pension. Even if I'm wrong on that point, they are able to claim Pension Credit which brings their income to more or less the same level.

 

It is also not surprising that there are thousands of people camped out in Northern France, hoping to get on a 'small boat' across to the UK where they will claim Asylum.  If they are successful in getting to the UK, we put them up in hotels until their claims are proceessed! From the time when they apply for Asylum until they are granted a degree of support from the UK and although it is very limited it does include housing.  However, once they achieve Refugee status, they are entitled to the full range of benefits - including Pension Credit!

 

So let's say you are receiving your pension and leave the UK this week it will be frozen at whatever rate it is at the moment.  However, someone with refugee status will be able to claim £201.05 at the moment but they will get the rise to £221.20 in April (Pension Credit).

 

I would state that I have nothing against helping out genuine refugees but when we can't allow our own citizens to receive their pension increases, it just seems plain wrong.  It is not surprising that there is so much anti Asylum Seeker sentiment in the UK.

[MangoKorat]

23 minutes ago, Georgealbert said:

Here is the report of the 2020 inquiry.

Thanks for that.

 

Typical of this Tory government.  They hold an All Party Parliamentary Group Inquiry into the matter of Frozen Pensions and then fail to follow its recommendations. Why?  Because those recommendations go against them.

 

'The report recommends that the UK Government end the ‘frozen’ pension policy and seek to provide UK pensioners living in ‘frozen’ countries with their full uprated UK
state pension as soon as possible'

 

http://frozenbritishpensions.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Frozen-Pensions-APPG-1.pdf

 

Given that the majority of MPs are millionaires and the rest will no doubt be very well off compared to the rest of us - they won't be worrying if their pensions are frozen.

 

 

Edited February 29 by MangoKorat

[Georgealbert]

5 minutes ago, MangoKorat said:

It is hardly surprising that people get angry at petty goverment rules on pensions paid to those living outside the UK when the following matters are considered:

 

I was born in Leeds and last year listened to a radio broadcast that stated that Leeds now has 3rd generation people who have never worked.  Not only have those lazy swines been claiming uneployment benefit throughout those 3 generations, you can be sure that they will also have been claiming housing and other benefits.

 

More to the point, I believe that those in receipt of unemployment benefit automatically gain pension credits and will therefore be entitled to the full basic state pension. Even if I'm wrong on that point, they are able to claim Pension Credit which brings their income to more or less the same level.

 

It is also not surprising that there are thousands of people camped out in Northern France, hoping to get on a 'small boat' across to the UK where they will claim Asylum.  If they are successful in getting to the UK, we put them up in hotels until their claims are proceessed! From the time when they apply for Asylum until they are granted a degree of support from the UK and although it is very limited it does include housing.  However, once they achieve Refugee status, they are entitled to the full range of benefits - including Pension Credit!

 

So let's say you are receiving your pension and leave the UK this week it will be frozen at whatever rate it is at the moment.  However, someone with refugee status will be able to claim £201.05 at the moment but they will get the rise to £221.20 in April (Pension Credit).

 

I would state that I have nothing against helping out genuine refugees but when we can't allow our own citizens to receive their pension increases, it just seems plain wrong.  It is not surprising that there is so much anti Asylum Seeker sentiment in the UK.

Remember the no upgrades started in 1948 and have been the same since then.

 

Before 1955, if you moved to Thailand you got nothing.

 

The no upgrades is a long standing policy of governments, of both Conservative, Labour and Liberal when in the coalition, and I am realistic to accept that I will not see it changing, as there is not the political will or public support for any change.

 

What ever anyone feeling on many situations in the UK, they have little or no bearing on frozen pension policy.

 

Best not to worry about it, as it is only you that will get stressed.

[Georgealbert]

17 minutes ago, MangoKorat said:

Thanks for that.

 

Typical of this Tory government.  They hold an All Party Parliamentary Group Inquiry into the matter of Frozen Pensions and then fail to follow its recommendations. Why?  Because those recommendations go against them.

 

'The report recommends that the UK Government end the ‘frozen’ pension policy and seek to provide UK pensioners living in ‘frozen’ countries with their full uprated UK
state pension as soon as possible'

 

http://frozenbritishpensions.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Frozen-Pensions-APPG-1.pdf

 

Given that the majority of MPs are millionaires and the rest will no doubt be very well off compared to the rest of us - they won't be worrying if their pensions are frozen.

 

 

From the parliamentary website, showing their limited standing.

 

“All-Party Parliamentary Groups (APPGs) are informal cross-party groups that have no official status within Parliament. They are run by and for Members of the Commons and Lords, though many choose to involve individuals and organisations from outside Parliament in their administration and activities”

 

There is currently about 800 APPGs, and the full list in the link below.

 

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmallparty/240124/register-240124.pdf

Edited February 29 by Georgealbert

[beautifulthailand99]

2 hours ago, Georgealbert said:

Remember the no upgrades started in 1948 and have been the same since then.

 

Before 1955, if you moved to Thailand you got nothing.

 

The no upgrades is a long standing policy of governments, of both Conservative, Labour and Liberal when in the coalition, and I am realistic to accept that I will not see it changing, as there is not the political will or public support for any change.

 

What ever anyone feeling on many situations in the UK, they have little or no bearing on frozen pension policy.

 

Best not to worry about it, as it is only you that will get stressed.

Wise words and worth noting that's Thais only get 600 baht per month at 60 rising to 700 at 70 and 800 I think at 80. Which is nowt. What also annoys me is we know a lot of Thai OAP's in the UK who have worked cash in hand most of their lives sent money home and bought houses etc and have money in Thai banks gets full UK pensions and housing benefit and such like because on paper they appear poor. Whilst I have been upgrading my wife's NI contributions on a voluntary basis to get her added years up to get a reasonable state pension she will get in 5 years time. No wonder Britain's welfare state is close to being totally broken, and why no Thais I know of living in Britain want to go back to live in Thailand full-time.

[MangoKorat]

25 minutes ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

Wise words and worth noting that's Thais only get 600 baht per month at 60 rising to 700 at 70 and 800 I think at 80.

Incorrect, that's the amount that Thai's get that haven't paid into a pension scheme, don't pay SS and don't pay tax.

[beautifulthailand99]

8 minutes ago, MangoKorat said:

Incorrect, that's the amount that Thai's get that haven't paid into a pension scheme, don't pay SS and don't pay tax.

Which is probably most of the service industry folks you encounter.

[MangoKorat]

The recommendations of the All Party Group clearly appear to show political will.  The general public won't be putting it at the top of their list - simply because the vast majority of them don't retire abroad and there are plenty of more serious widespread issues at the moment.

 

I'm aware that this policy has remained in place throughout governments of all flavours but this UK government is particularly bad when it comes to looking after its own and sod everyone else.

 

Granted, the country's been through Covid but in reality, the country is in a hell of a state after years of Tory cuts in public services.  I'm baffled by the Tory's rhetoric at the moment - in the same news bulletin they talk about tax cuts and further cuts to public services.  Some local authorities are looking at bankruptcy and I think it was 116 of them that have stated they are likely to run out of money in the next 5 years.

 

The government says it won't even look at unfreezing pensions but knowing the ridiculous cost of anything that governments do, they are probably going to spend more on the new pension fraud checks than that 'fraud' is actually costing them.

Edited February 29 by MangoKorat

[MangoKorat]

29 minutes ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

Which is probably most of the service industry folks you encounter.

Yes but you can't compare two completely different pension systems.  Despite the amount of long term unemployed etc. the majority of UK citizens pay N.I. during their working lives - a contributory pension scheme.

 

I'm unsure of the actual percentage but I believe the majority of Thai's pay no tax or insurance and therefore no pension contributions. You could then, say they are lucky to get even 600 baht per month.

Edited February 29 by MangoKorat

[beautifulthailand99]

4 hours ago, MangoKorat said:

Thanks for that.

 

Typical of this Tory government.  They hold an All Party Parliamentary Group Inquiry into the matter of Frozen Pensions and then fail to follow its recommendations. Why?  Because those recommendations go against them.

 

'The report recommends that the UK Government end the ‘frozen’ pension policy and seek to provide UK pensioners living in ‘frozen’ countries with their full uprated UK
state pension as soon as possible'

 

http://frozenbritishpensions.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Frozen-Pensions-APPG-1.pdf

 

Given that the majority of MPs are millionaires and the rest will no doubt be very well off compared to the rest of us - they won't be worrying if their pensions are frozen.

 

 

That's an interesting and fair report and in a just and fair world the recommendations would be implemented in full. That said, what leaps out is the cost of doing that would be £600 million per year for a 'virtual' constituency that has little or no effect on votes back home, so there is no political imperative to make that happen and I can't see that ever-changing. Since in a report referenced up the thread they reckoned that frozen pension 'fraud' was costing £100 million per year, that would indicate a fair amount of transgressions. APPG's along with Select Committees and the like are secondary parts of the executive giving roles to back benchers to make them feel useful and are often for the also-rans and never will bes and easily and conveniently ignored by ministers who yield the actual power.

Edited February 29 by beautifulthailand99

[MangoKorat]

22 hours ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

That said, what leaps out is the cost of doing that would be £600 million per year

I'm not sure where that figure comes from but are you saying that's what the government is saving by freezing pensions?  In other words, that's what they are fiddling pensioners out - so that's their real motivation. Its disgusting.

 

This might have been taken to court many times without success but I'd be looking at the Law of Contract.  A contract can be written, verbal or implied.  In paying your National Insurance contributions, you have entered into a contract with the UK government - the implication being that you pay contributions and in return receive pension credits according to the amount of time you pay in for.  When you retire you are then provided with a pension. 

 

A contract in law must comprise of several key elements: An Offer, an Acceptance, a Consideration, an Intention and a Certainty. The person making the Offer is refered to as the Promisor and the benificiary of the contract is known as the Promisee.

 

In this case the Offer would be on the government's part that in return for the Consideration (your N.I. contributions) they will provide an amount of pension. The Intention is to provide you with the means to sustain yourself after you retire from work. The certainty applies to both sides in that you will make such payments and the government guarantees payment.

 

Courts regularly rule against unfair contract terms.

 

 

 

[beautifulthailand99]

40 minutes ago, MangoKorat said:

I'm not sure where that figure comes from but are you saying that's what the government is saving by freezing pensions?  In other words, that's what they are fiddling pensioners out - so that's their real motivation. Its disgusting.

 

This might have been taken to court many times without success but I'd be looking at the Law of Contract.  A contract can be written, verbal or implied.  In paying your National Insurance contributions, you have entered into a contract with the UK government - the implication being that you pay contributions and in return receive pension credits according to the amount of time you pay in for.  When you retire you are then provided with a pension. 

 

A contract in law must comprise of several key elements: An Offer, an Acceptance, a Consideration, an Intention and a Certainty. The person making the Offer is refered to as the Promisor and the benificiary of the contract is known as the Promisee.

 

In this case the Offer would be on the government's part that in return for the Consideration (your N.I. contributions) they will provide an amount of pension. The Intention is to provide you with the means to sustain yourself after you retire from work. The certainty applies to both sides in that you will make such payments and the government guarantees payment.

 

Courts regularly rule against unfair contract terms.

 

 

 

It's in that report from the AAPG and yes it is disgusting and an anomaly, particularly so in that pensioners don't make a big claim on the state for free bus fares healthcare and the like, making it doubly iniquitous. If a class action was to be attempted, then a lot of people would have to put up a lot of money to prepare a case and take the government to court. You're talking serious money here, and in many cases the government has Crown immunity anyway so normal laws do not apply. My sister just lost out at getting her pension at 60 when she had fully expected it all her working life , there was a court case I seem to remember, but they lost.

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6061da7ad3bf7f5ce1060a85/Crown_Application__Jan_2021_.pdf

[MangoKorat]

2 minutes ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

It's in that report from the AAPG and yes it is disgusting and an anomaly, particularly so in that pensioners don't make a big claim on the state for free bus fares healthcare and the like, making it doubly iniquitous. If a class action was to be attempted, then a lot of people would have to put up a lot of money to prepare a case and take the government to court. You're talking serious money here, and in many cases the government has Crown immunity anyway so normal laws do not apply. My sister just lost out at getting her pension at 60 when she had fully expected it all her working life , there was a court case I seem to remember, but they lost.

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6061da7ad3bf7f5ce1060a85/Crown_Application__Jan_2021_.pdf

The key to taking the government to court on a matter of contract would be to first of all get a court to rule that the contract exists without revealing your next move.