British Pensioner Struggles with Frozen Pension in Thailand

[ericbj]

22 minutes ago, transam said:

I think you need to adjust your font size.........🤭

Thanks.  Done !
I commonly copy/paste from my text editor, NoteTab Pro.  But on this occasion from the word-processor of Libre Office.  The latter reproduces the same large typeface I use to be able to see what I am typing more clearly.  NoteTab always copies a standard size irrespective of the font size on screen.

[sibarnes2000]

The government may think they are saving money but if pensioners have to return home to then need housing and expensive NHS care then ultimately it will cost them more. It’s also not the policy in EU countries which the UK left a few years back. Perhaps it will change now that UK citizens who have left the country longer than 15 years (I think) have regained the right to vote.

[Miami007]

7 hours ago, Georgealbert said:

Yes it is not fair, but being realistic it is not going to change, however many online petitions or stories like this appear.

 

The UK pension is a 100 years old next year, here is the history of why it remains frozen in Thailand.

 

1925 - Pension introduced and only payable in Great Britain, Northern Ireland and Isle Of Man.

 

1929 - The Contributory Pension Act, which allowed pensions to be paid in HM’s Dominions (as a means of encouraging emigration to countries of the ‘British Empire’).

 

1946 - The National Insurance Act and Regulations, provide that the pension was typically not paid abroad, except it was payable for pensioners in HM Dominions, or when an absence abroad didn’t exceed 12 months.

 

1948 - The first pension increase was from 10 shillings to 26 shillings per week.  This significant increase was not paid abroad because the pensioners concerned were deemed not to have made sufficient contribution to the new insurance scheme.

 

1948 to 1981 - First reciprocal agreements with France, Italy, Switzerland, the Netherlands and Luxembourg provided for uprating. There was a special arrangement for UK pensioners living in Ireland to also receive the state pension, but they didn’t receive the uprating until 1966. Later UK negotiated reciprocal agreements with 30 countries which allowed for uprating  (Barbados; Bermuda; Bosnia-Herzegovina; Croatia; Guernsey; Isle of Man; Israel; Jamaica; Jersey; Mauritius; Montenegro; the Philippines; Serbia; Turkey; the United States of America; and, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia plus all EU countries)

 

1955 - Pensions became payable anywhere in the world, but without uprating, without a reciprocal agreement.

 

So in 99 years of the pension, there has never been any uprating in Thailand, and before 1955 there would be nothing paid.

 

 

Maybe it is time to review an institution which is 99 years old. 

 

The fact that the rule has been in place since 1955, doesn't make it relevant in 2024. Back then very few people ventured abroad in old age. You also had fewer young people leaving their home country.

Basically, the rule penalizes anyone who wants to be close to family living abroad when they are old.

What is the logical rationale to freeze pensions at the level of a person leaving? The older person uses less of other government services (especially medical care) in the UK. It would actually be cheaper for the government to have every retiree leave 

 

Hiding behind a missing reciprocal agreement with Thailand is ridiculous. How many typical Thais move to the UK in retirement? Even if Thailand were to pay them benefits in the UK, how far would that THB pension get them in UK?

 

Some posted that people should have known and made a personal decision. Let's be honest, how many people were aware of it before reading the post.  How many would even start to think that their retirement would not increase if they live in Country A? 

Maybe the lady could have maintained a PO Box or physical address in the UK to avoid this issue. But 20 years ago, online banking to get money transferred was much more difficult than today. 

 

I will definitely check the USA rules for their benefits now as I am planning to leave in retirement. 

Last but not least, governments do change longstanding rules when there is sufficient pressure. Germany did not allow dual-citizenship (except in rare cases) but is now changing the law to allow Germans living abroad to accept citizenship of that country as well. Still waiting for Austria to do so

[Miami007]

7 hours ago, Georgealbert said:

Yes it is not fair, but being realistic it is not going to change, however many online petitions or stories like this appear.

 

The UK pension is a 100 years old next year, here is the history of why it remains frozen in Thailand.

 

1925 - Pension introduced and only payable in Great Britain, Northern Ireland and Isle Of Man.

 

1929 - The Contributory Pension Act, which allowed pensions to be paid in HM’s Dominions (as a means of encouraging emigration to countries of the ‘British Empire’).

 

1946 - The National Insurance Act and Regulations, provide that the pension was typically not paid abroad, except it was payable for pensioners in HM Dominions, or when an absence abroad didn’t exceed 12 months.

 

1948 - The first pension increase was from 10 shillings to 26 shillings per week.  This significant increase was not paid abroad because the pensioners concerned were deemed not to have made sufficient contribution to the new insurance scheme.

 

1948 to 1981 - First reciprocal agreements with France, Italy, Switzerland, the Netherlands and Luxembourg provided for uprating. There was a special arrangement for UK pensioners living in Ireland to also receive the state pension, but they didn’t receive the uprating until 1966. Later UK negotiated reciprocal agreements with 30 countries which allowed for uprating  (Barbados; Bermuda; Bosnia-Herzegovina; Croatia; Guernsey; Isle of Man; Israel; Jamaica; Jersey; Mauritius; Montenegro; the Philippines; Serbia; Turkey; the United States of America; and, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia plus all EU countries)

 

1955 - Pensions became payable anywhere in the world, but without uprating, without a reciprocal agreement.

 

So in 99 years of the pension, there has never been any uprating in Thailand, and before 1955 there would be nothing paid.

 

 

Maybe it is time to review an institution which is 99 years old. 

 

The fact that the rule has been in place since 1955, doesn't make it relevant in 2024. Back then very few people ventured abroad in old age. You also had fewer young people leaving their home country.

Basically, the rule penalizes anyone who wants to be close to family living abroad when they are old.

What is the logical rationale to freeze pensions at the level of a person leaving? The older person uses less of other government services (especially medical care) in the UK. It would actually be cheaper for the government to have every retiree leave 

 

Hiding behind a missing reciprocal agreement with Thailand is ridiculous. How many typical Thais move to the UK in retirement? Even if Thailand were to pay them benefits in the UK, how far would that THB pension get them in UK?

 

Some posted that people should have known and made a personal decision. Let's be honest, how many people were aware of it before reading the post.  How many would even start to think that their retirement would not increase if they live in Country A? 

Maybe the lady could have maintained a PO Box or physical address in the UK to avoid this issue. But 20 years ago, online banking to get money transferred was much more difficult than today. 

 

I will definitely check the USA rules for their benefits now as I am planning to leave in retirement. 

Last but not least, governments do change longstanding rules when there is sufficient pressure. Germany did not allow dual-citizenship (except in rare cases) but is now changing the law to allow Germans living abroad to accept citizenship of that country as well. Still waiting for Austria to do so

[Kinok Farang]

38 minutes ago, ericbj said:

A perspective on the issue and some comments pertaining thereto:

 

1.  The woman's decision to emigrate to Thailand twenty years ago seems based upon re-joining family members.  A quite natural motive.  Her son was then aged 45.  He seems to be contributing at least as much to her upkeep as the UK Pensions Service.  Which, with his increasing age, a family to support, and economic downturns, is likely becoming increasingly burdensome.

 

2.  What evidence exists, as alleged in a comment, of the son operating an illegal business?  I.e. that it is not at least 51% Thai-owned.  If unfounded, this statement could constitute a libel; and perjury if claimed in a criminal hearing.

 

3.  The suggestion she may not have paid NI contributions is unsubstantiated; and besides the point if she is entitled on the basis of payments made by another.

 

4.  It is true that many Thai workers and their families can subsist on less than this woman.  But they are part of a network of relationships.  Which includes expanding Thai Government social services, including healthcare.  For example, go to a Thai public hospital for an eye operation.  An expatriate will not have it for the price a Thai person pays.

 

5.  Global economic circumstances have changed radically and unpredictably over the past 2 to 3 decades.  And are changing ever more rapidly now.
Who can foresee today what the world will be like in 2044?

 

6.  The Thai economy and Thai regulations, both in substance and application, have dramatically altered over recent decades.

 

7.  Not every retiree fits neatly into one of two categories:

Those who plan the move in every last financial detail, down to their final demise; and

 

Those who throw caution to the wind and come out on a whim, full of blue-eyed optimism.

 

My personal experience - not typical - but there are doubtlessly many untypical cases:

 

Came six months, unpaid, in each of a dozen years helping refugees (mostly genuine) improve their English with a view to resettlement in "western" countries.  Discontinued this, but continued coming as result of relationships developed here.  Because of changes to tourist visa (more limited duration), switched to O-A retirement visa.  Changes to O-A visa (health insurance with one of 8 listed companies) forced change to O visa for retirement).  Returned here late 2019.  Due back in Europe mid-May.  But the plandemic strikes.  Return flight cancelled.  Book seat on another flight.  Flight cancelled.  Book again.  Third time lucky?  No!  Flight cancelled.  From the next day, 1st July 2020, all international passenger-flights banned, and borders closed.  When finally the sanctions are lifted (thanks to the damage caused to the world's second largest tourist economy) the deterioration of my health renders the return journey unthinkable, not least because of the physical and administrative challenges to be confronted on arrival.

 

My impression of immigration policy as currently being drafted by the Thai Cabinet is that it favours short-term tourism where visitors come for several weeks, and spend much of their annual savings in the process.  They seem to be less interested in retirees, unless these happen to be extremely well-heeled.

 

The politicians may be missing the point that short-term tourism is volatile.  When times are good, it booms.  When a depression sets in, hardly anyone comes.  You only have to look back to 2008 and its aftermath to see this.

 

Retirees, on the other hand, make a less obvious but substantial commitment to the overall economy rather than to the tourist economy.  They are here, as a rule, for the long term.  It is not easy to up stumps and depart at short notice.  Except upon death.  And then some at least of their assets may remain in Thailand.

 

There is a case for both types of visitor.

Can you repeat that please?

[Robbie2618]

Don't understand the fit to fly requirement. Book a ticket and go, even if needing a wheelchair the airlines/airport supplies that on request. Unless she is clearly in medical distress nobody asks for a fit to fly letter at check in. 

[Liverpool Lou]

4 hours ago, Blueman1 said:

 If she returns to the UK, her pension will be updated to the current level, which begs the question: If she left again in six months, would she keep the new rate here?.....I Got 2 DIFFERENT Answers from the DWP....I'll let YOU guess !!

No need to guess, the answer is yes, she would continue to receive the amount she was receiving when she was in the UK.  

[Georgealbert]

36 minutes ago, Miami007 said:

Maybe it is time to review an institution which is 99 years old. 

 

The fact that the rule has been in place since 1955, doesn't make it relevant in 2024. Back then very few people ventured abroad in old age. You also had fewer young people leaving their home country.

Basically, the rule penalizes anyone who wants to be close to family living abroad when they are old.

What is the logical rationale to freeze pensions at the level of a person leaving? The older person uses less of other government services (especially medical care) in the UK. It would actually be cheaper for the government to have every retiree leave 

 

Hiding behind a missing reciprocal agreement with Thailand is ridiculous. How many typical Thais move to the UK in retirement? Even if Thailand were to pay them benefits in the UK, how far would that THB pension get them in UK?

 

Some posted that people should have known and made a personal decision. Let's be honest, how many people were aware of it before reading the post.  How many would even start to think that their retirement would not increase if they live in Country A? 

Maybe the lady could have maintained a PO Box or physical address in the UK to avoid this issue. But 20 years ago, online banking to get money transferred was much more difficult than today. 

 

I will definitely check the USA rules for their benefits now as I am planning to leave in retirement. 

Last but not least, governments do change longstanding rules when there is sufficient pressure. Germany did not allow dual-citizenship (except in rare cases) but is now changing the law to allow Germans living abroad to accept citizenship of that country as well. Still waiting for Austria to do so

Yes I don’t disagree with anything you say, I just wanted to give a true history of the UK frozen pensions, without the myths, comments and rumours you often hear. My original post did say,’ I don’t think it is fair’.

 

There has been many challenges to the freezing of pensions, with 1963, being the very first protest at the unfairness of not uprating the state pension for everyone. There has been legal challenges to the rules, at all levels of the UK legal systems, through both houses of the UK parliament, also through the European Court of Human Rights and even Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, without success.

 

I am just being realistic, as I see little chances of it being changed in my lifetime.

Edited June 1 by Georgealbert

[cracker1]

8 hours ago, DaLa said:

Would it make more sense to lobby the Thai government to enter into a reciprocal social security agreement with the UK government. An increase in all those 'frozen' pensions would result in £ entering the country and ฿ in the economy. If the Philippines have the facility/legislation then it can't be rocket science for it to be introduced here.

Thousands of older Thai people would then gravitate to the UK for retirement ?

[freeworld]

1 hour ago, cardinalblue said:

Son and daughter need to get her fit to fly and then deal with housing/care issues upon return…

 

I know in canada one must reside X months b/f receiving gov health coverage so could also be a barrier to overcome in UK

They could always make use of the emergency part of a hospital until they are settled.

[Liverpool Lou]

4 hours ago, roo860 said:

Isn't 35yrs contributions the maximum, it seems like anyone born after 1951 and has 35yrs contributions that's what it is for the £898 pension. Have you contacted the DWP?

Mandatory Class 1 NI contributions fund pensions and other benefits pensions and are deducted from salaries during the entire period of employment (over certain salary levels) up to retirement age.  NIC don't stop after 35 years.

[Liverpool Lou]

4 hours ago, Thingamabob said:

Question is what has the UK govt done with the contributions I made for over 50 years ?

They went towards the entire social security system, not just your own state pension.

[Mickboy]

The British government should not have the right to do this to it's people it's especially wrong to include commonwealth countries too it's downright criminal.

[Liverpool Lou]

4 hours ago, Surasak said:

The simple answer to that is NO. If the DWP know you have left the country after a pension upgrade, they will reduce it to the previous payment.

No, they do not reduce state pensions, the payment remains at the amount paid before leaving the UK.

[still kicking]

1 minute ago, Mickboy said:

The British government should not have the right to do this to it's people it's especially wrong to include commonwealth countries too it's downright criminal.

But they need all the money for those illegal migrants.

[Liverpool Lou]

6 hours ago, 10baht said:

I am not sure what this means, but I gave me a thought. Can't she fail to renew her visa and the Thai government will deport her ? Right?

Two points, she'd have to fund her own return to the UK after being detained at the Immigration Detention Centre and she has to be fit to fly.

[Liverpool Lou]

4 hours ago, bradiston said:

Somebody gets her an address in the Philippines.

She'd have to prove that she was living there.

Edited June 1 by Liverpool Lou

[freeworld]

6 minutes ago, Mickboy said:

The British government should not have the right to do this to it's people it's especially wrong to include commonwealth countries too it's downright criminal.

Legal challenge by someone based in South Africa was unsuccessful. It seems elected govt members need to be motivated to change this.

 

''2002 legal challenge

Main article: R (Carson) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

In April 2002, writer Annette Carson, a UK pensioner resident in South Africa, challenged the policy in the English High Court under the Human Rights Act 1998, but the judge ruled against her, stating in the judgment that the up-ratings issue was a political one, not a judicial one. An appeal to the Court of Appeal (2003) failed, as did an appeal to the House of Lords (2005) and the European Court of Human Rights (2008).[citation needed]

 

A subsequent referral to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in 2009–2010 said that it did not consider that the applicants, who were resident outside the UK in countries which were not party to reciprocal agreements, were in a relevantly similar position to residents of the UK or of countries which did have such agreements. It, therefore, held (by eleven votes to six) that there had been no discrimination.[7]''

[Liverpool Lou]

3 hours ago, sambum said:

the writer of the post is from the Isle of Man where apparently they have a higher level of Pension than the rest of the UK.

The writer of the post is from the Isle of Man where apparently they have a higher level of Pension than the the UK. The IOM is not part of the UK.

[freeworld]

14 minutes ago, still kicking said:

But they need all the money for those illegal migrants.

The current asylum system (2022) is costing the taxpayer £1.5 billion a year, the highest amount in over two decades.

 

1.5 billion for 500000 pensioners is 3000GBP each.

[Liverpool Lou]

3 hours ago, Jiggo said:

Not frozen if you live in The Philippines 

Work that one out

The reason has been explained many times.

[NorthernRyland]

2 hours ago, kimamey said:

The PM isn't an immigrant.  He was born in the Princess Anne  Hospital in Southampton UK. His parents are Indian Abbs he may have Indian citizenship through that, although I don't know but he definitely isn't an immigrant. 

This is how you get ruled over by foreigners. When push comes to shove they will stand behind other Indians before any of you English people. Same for the mayor of London. The same legal status as everyone else but who does he serve? Not you I can assure. 

[Liverpool Lou]

3 hours ago, sambum said:

Of course it has - the Isle of Man is part of the UK/Britain is it not?

No.

[Liverpool Lou]

3 hours ago, Nigeone said:

Britain , but not part of UK . Never has been. 

Not part of Britain, either.

[NorthernRyland]

4 minutes ago, freeworld said:

The current asylum system (2022) is costing the taxpayer £1.5 billion a year, the highest amount in over two decades.

 

1.5 billion for 500000 pensioners is 3000GBP each.

Muslim, African and Hispanic immigrants all cost the taxpayer in every European/Anglo country they come to. Denmark apparently wants to actually survive unlike Britain or America and is publicly studying this and making sane judgments. This is known information but our countries hide it from the public.

 

https://www.thelocal.dk/20211015/denmark-says-non-western-immigrants-cost-state-31-billion-kroner

[NorthernRyland]

30 minutes ago, Mickboy said:

The British government should not have the right to do this to it's people it's especially wrong to include commonwealth countries too it's downright criminal.

these pensions were intended to care for people in their old age but they're being used to manipulate your choice of how your retire. It's scandalous the state has any opinion on the matter whatsoever.

[Liverpool Lou]

1 hour ago, Miami007 said:

Basically, the rule penalizes anyone who wants to be close to family living abroad when they are old.

What is the logical rationale to freeze pensions at the level of a person leaving?

We're lucky, originally state pensions were not paid at all to those living abroad...we should be thankful that we get anything.

Edited June 1 by Liverpool Lou

[Liverpool Lou]

1 hour ago, Robbie2618 said:

Don't understand the fit to fly requirement. Book a ticket and go, even if needing a wheelchair the airlines/airport supplies that on request. Unless she is clearly in medical distress nobody asks for a fit to fly letter at check in. 

She is obviously very ill in order for doctors to refuse to issue a fit to fly cert...that will be noticed at check in.

[Nigeone]

13 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Not part of Britain, either.

Yes we are . We have a governor installed being a crown dependency .  My passport has British citizen on it , along with Isle of Man . If was not born there that wouldn’t be on it . I’ve been there all my life , 70 years , and we have always had that status . And you should know that being from Liverpool lol 

Edited June 1 by Nigeone

[Liverpool Lou]

6 minutes ago, Nigeone said:

19 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Not part of Britain, either.

Yes we are . We have a governor installed being a crown dependency .  My passport has British citizen on it ...

And you should know that being from Liverpool lol

Yes, IOM is a self-governing British Crown Dependency and part of the British Islands but not part of the UK.  Not being part of the UK means that, by definition, the IOM cannot be part of Great Britain, either.  I'm surprised that you do not know the content of the Isle of Man Constitution.