3 hours ago, denby45 said:

"Issuing a court summons to Chancellor Philip Hammond to try to reclaim "lost" payments."

This for me is a huge mistake and is definitely a stumbling block. They should concentrate on getting the current system change to up-rating for all as a priority. Yes the backdating of payments is also important especially for some who have lost out over the years but why don't they put that issue away for the time being and resurrect it after the government have changed the current system effectively admitting they made a mistake.

It is surely time to be smart and treat the two issues separately. One step at a time and keep it simple.

 

Den 

Unfortunately they are joined at the hip. The government cannot deal with one without opening the door to liability on the other and I think that is why they are digging their heels in.

The differential on my pension is now about £15 and over around 5 years making an average of about £3 a year. If we were to say the average back payment owed was 10 years it would make about £1500 on average owed to pensioners. I think it has been said that there is around half a million on frozen pensions so the potential back payment bill could be around 750 million, not a huge amount compared to this balance in the NIF sitting doing nothing.

It makes you wonder if it is the management of the change that is more of an obstacle that the cost itself.

1 hour ago, mommysboy said:

Go charging at the barn door you often end up flat on your backside.

 

It really is a head scratcher though.  

 

Another Guardian article on frozen pensions. The more the merrier.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/apr/21/uk-state-pensions-frozen-campaign-policy

 

Most of the comments, thus far, appear favourable to an uprating.

Edited April 21, 20188 yr by dabhand

Dear ICBP Supporter.

I hope that some, if not many of you, are aware of the huge efforts of ICBP to get the issue of frozen pensions on the agenda, or at least discussed, at the Commonwealth Heads of  Government Meetings which have just taken place in London.
95% of the half million frozen pensioners live in Commonwealth countries. Although, in no way do we want to abandon frozen pensioners in non Commonwealth countries, this event has given us a real hook to lobby and educate a wider public, and also  the politicians who hold power to make change. The sheer illogicality of celebrating  the value of the Commonwealth while continuing to disadvantage their residents by freezing pensions in 48 out of 53 countries was a powerful message.
We certainly made our presence known. John Duffy, one of our Directors, was able to attend a number of forums as a delegate from Antigua asking questions of panelists, distributing leaflets and informing other delegates. 
Meanwhile we were using social media to engage anyone of influence. There is no way they could have been ignorant of our determination that the unfreezing of pensions be addressed.
The full ramifications of our efforts have still to be evaluated, but one major development is that Sir Richard Branson has vocalized his support for us on his personal blog and Facebook page with over 3 million followers.
 https://www.virgin.com/richard-branson/frozen-pensions

We have never had such high profile endorsement!

It is important that we all visit these pages and comment/thank him for his support, which might encourage him to support us further. Spread the word to family and friends. You don't need to be a frozen pensioner to understand that the policy is discriminatory and illogical. It is also important to  make these comments quickly, while the blog and the issue are still hot!

The other highlights of the four days were:

-We had two AdVans driving round London, boldly carrying our message.



-John Duffy issued a Summons To Philip Hammond, Chancellor of the Exchequer, claiming redress for breach of contract with regard to his frozen pension.

John Duffy ICBP Director

 

- There was a “Drop in” event in the Houses of Parliament, where MPs joined us at an event which outlined our campaign to unfreeze pensions
- The Daily Express covered our story
-  We understand that the Guardian and the Sunday Times will also feature frozen pensions stories this weekend.

You will understand that mounting a campaign like this costs a great deal of money ( as well as time and sacrifice from our board) and if you are not already a member of CABP or BPiA who support ICBP financially, perhaps you would consider a donation directly to ICBP at the website.  www.pensionjustice.org.

Yours sincerely, 

Chairman, ICBP

On 21/04/2018 at 1:22 PM, evadgib said:

Any publicity is good publicity and I for one am happy at how the Consortium tackled the CHOGM in front of the watching world.

 

It's grossly unfair (and so too is the 2 tier system)  but clearly the government has exploited a loophole regarding increments.  It's been looked at and isn't unlawful, so any legal challenge is bound to fail.

 

It would have been better to be less confrontational.  That way, there may have been more sympathy at a higher level.  The government has already said it is illogical and gave the reason that is not affordable to consider back payments- this could have been taken as a clue on how to proceed.

 

The present stance is just playing in to their hands imo.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/apr/21/uk-state-pensions-frozen-campaign-policy

 

Indeed.

58 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

 

It's grossly unfair (and so too is the 2 tier system)  but clearly the government has exploited a loophole regarding increments.  It's been looked at and isn't unlawful, so any legal challenge is bound to fail.

 

It would have been better to be less confrontational.  That way, there may have been more sympathy at a higher level.  The government has already said it is illogical and gave the reason that is not affordable to consider back payments- this could have been taken as a clue on how to proceed.

 

The present stance is just playing in to their hands imo.

The campaign to unfreeze pensions will certainly not be won through legal challenge, however, raising a claim against the government is a symbolic action which will attract publicity for the political campaign. Slavery was lawful in the UK until 1834.  It wasn't the government  who were unhappy with it.  It took a protracted and determined political campaign to change the law.

1 hour ago, Rajab Al Zarahni said:

The campaign to unfreeze pensions will certainly not be won through legal challenge, however, raising a claim against the government is a symbolic action which will attract publicity for the political campaign. Slavery was lawful in the UK until 1834.  It wasn't the government  who were unhappy with it.  It took a protracted and determined political campaign to change the law.

You make a compelling argument.  I'm not sure I would make such a dramatic comparison. 

 

The headscratcher for me is how this situation has been allowed to go on for so long; it's a total contradiction in the way the scheme runs.  The recent overhaul was about fairness for all, and simplicity.

 

The only bit of reasoning was that expats were no longer contributing to UK economy.  Yet this is a weak argument since the pension is always based on qualifying  contributions - that's as clear as day.

 

 

 

Edited April 22, 20188 yr by mommysboy

28 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

You make a compelling argument.  I'm not sure I would make such a dramatic comparison. 

 

The headscratcher for me is how this situation has been allowed to go on for so long; it's a total contradiction in the way the scheme runs.  The recent overhaul was about fairness for all, and simplicity.

 

The only bit of reasoning was that expats were no longer contributing to UK economy.  Yet this is a weak argument since the pension is always based on qualifying  contributions - that's as clear as day.

 

 

 

More intriguing to me is the process  of reasoning that brought about the freezing of pensions in the first place. I have learned through experience never to underestimate the huge numbers of people who are motivated by envy and jealousy. The perception of expats living in Thailand by many in the corridors of power is of retired men with no responsibilities living cheaply but contentedly in a palm tree paradise with a beautiful supermodel girlfriend.  Remember that many people who administer the law go to work in  the cold and the rain on a congested underground a travel two hours a day just to come and go from the daily grind.

More intriguing to me is the process  of reasoning that brought about the freezing of pensions in the first place. I have learned through experience never to underestimate the huge numbers of people who are motivated by envy and jealousy. The perception of expats living in Thailand by many in the corridors of power is of retired men with no responsibilities living cheaply but contentedly in a palm tree paradise with a beautiful supermodel girlfriend.  Remember that many people who administer the law go to work in  the cold and the rain on a congested underground a travel two hours a day just to come and go from the daily grind.

And many Expats had to work like that for decades, prior to retiring on their ‘frozen’ pensions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I love the way whenever there is an article about pensioners living abroad ,its always preceeded by a picture of two fit and healthy young looking pensioners walking on a beach ,or as in yesterdays paper(which i will not mention)two pensioners with backpacks hiking over the hills ,so far from reality its a joke .

And that is why we will not get our rises .

On 21/04/2018 at 4:27 PM, evadgib said:

 

I just wanted to say thanks for what you are doing anyway.  Maybe sometimes there is no easy negotiation and you may be right.

18 hours ago, mommysboy said:

 

The only bit of reasoning was that expats were no longer contributing to UK economy.  Yet this is a weak argument since the pension is always based on qualifying  contributions - that's as clear as day.

I would go further and suggest that this was a complete non-argument. Why could expats living in the Phillipines (who receive the annual increases) be said to be contributing to the UK economy in the way that their counterparts living in Thailand were not?

3 hours ago, OJAS said:

I would go further and suggest that this was a complete non-argument. Why could expats living in the Phillipines (who receive the annual increases) be said to be contributing to the UK economy in the way that their counterparts living in Thailand were not?

 

You could say exactly the same about the USA and Canada or the American and the British Virgin Islands.

 

Crazy isn't it.

 

This was a great idea but the lack of the word 'frozen' & no reference to victims in non-Commonwealth countries means that Joe Public and the worlds media thought it had something to do with Windrush!

 

Back to square one 

 
You could say exactly the same about the USA and Canada or the American and the British Virgin Islands.
 
Crazy isn't it.

It’s all to do with Treaties. Wonder when the last one was signed, with what country and why can there not be further new treaties with ‘frozen’ countries?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

18 minutes ago, DILLIGAD said:

It’s all to do with Treaties. Wonder when the last one was signed, with what country and why can there not be further new treaties with ‘frozen’ countries?

 

Why has it got anything to do with treaties at all? I've never understood the logic.

3 hours ago, Oxx said:

 

Why has it got anything to do with treaties at all? I've never understood the logic.

There is no logic. Its just an excuse to throw you of the scent. Think about it, why can't the UK pay what it wants to whoever it wants ? Is the Thai government going to break off diplomatic relations and declare war because the UK has paid increases to its pensioners ? The fact of a treaty is not a requirement, its just a device to  get people thinking that there is a logical reason why it can't be done.

(If I manage to cock this up it's worth reading the full post on the relevant FB page!)

 

Top recent posts

 

Brian Corrigan shared a link to the group: British Pensions in Australia.

Yesterday at 14:17

 · 

 

Is it time for legal action?

 

The recent meeting in London of the Commonwealth heads of Government seemed,on paper, to b...

Group litigation orders

www.gov.uk

8 Comments

3 Shares

 

Edited April 26, 20188 yr by evadgib

There is no logic. Its just an excuse to throw you of the scent. Think about it, why can't the UK pay what it wants to whoever it wants ? Is the Thai government going to break off diplomatic relations and declare war because the UK has paid increases to its pensioners ? The fact of a treaty is not a requirement, its just a device to  get people thinking that there is a logical reason why it can't be done.

Exactly, but why is it not mentioned by this party who are honorably fighting the fight on behalf of the frozen pension getters.

1 hour ago, DILLIGAD said:

Exactly, but why is it not mentioned by this party who are honorably fighting the fight on behalf of the frozen pension getters.

The UK government have mired this issue in a number of clever obfuscations. The need to have a Social Security Agreement is just one of them.

They no longer use this excuse as everyone knows its rubbish. The latest defence is the one about expats not contributing to the tax burden. This also falls apart as an argument with many expats paying income tax on their pensions at source and pensioners in, for example the Philippines, getting the increase that are denied to those in Thailand.

Consider for a moment why the treatment of the Windrush generation has raised holy hell in Parliament. Diane Abbott and David Lammy have threatened hell, death and public hangings for the heinous crime of racism about the unjust way they have been treated. Their unique characteristic however is that they are black.

If they were indigenous, white, Anglo-Saxon and protestant they would just be told "tough luck, stop making a fuss about nothing" ! 

Edited April 26, 20188 yr by Rajab Al Zarahni
Addition

7 hours ago, Rajab Al Zarahni said:

The UK government have mired this issue in a number of clever obfuscations. The need to have a Social Security Agreement is just one of them.

They no longer use this excuse as everyone knows its rubbish. The latest defence is the one about expats not contributing to the tax burden. This also falls apart as an argument with many expats paying income tax on their pensions at source and pensioners in, for example the Philippines, getting the increase that are denied to those in Thailand.

Consider for a moment why the treatment of the Windrush generation has raised holy hell in Parliament. Diane Abbott and David Lammy have threatened hell, death and public hangings for the heinous crime of racism about the unjust way they have been treated. Their unique characteristic however is that they are black.

If they were indigenous, white, Anglo-Saxon and protestant they would just be told "tough luck, stop making a fuss about nothing" ! 

How many pensioners are paying tax on their state pension? Do you have the figures? Just curious.

 

Thanks

 

Den

Just now, denby45 said:

How many pensioners are paying tax on their state pension? Do you have the figures? Just curious.

 

Thanks

 

Den

I don't have any figures but  those paying tax on pension income will generally be those with both state pension and private pension income. Any income liability would be taken from the private pension at source. 

3 minutes ago, Rajab Al Zarahni said:

I don't have any figures but  those paying tax on pension income will generally be those with both state pension and private pension income. Any income liability would be taken from the private pension at source. 

Paying tax on private pension is not relevant to the argument. Also I do know there is no facility for the government to tax your state pension at source. It is always paid gross and is supposed to be reconciled if you go over your personal allowance. I know many pensioners but I don't know any that get enough state pension to pay tax on it. The reason I asked about the numbers of pensioners is because I cannot find any figures online.

 

Den 

7 minutes ago, Rajab Al Zarahni said:

I don't have any figures but  those paying tax on pension income will generally be those with both state pension and private pension income. Any income liability would be taken from the private pension at source. 

Anyone on only a state pension will not reach the threshold that is their tax allowance (£11500 ?).  Must be tough going on state pension alone.

3 minutes ago, champers said:

Anyone on only a state pension will not reach the threshold that is their tax allowance (£11500 ?).  Must be tough going on state pension alone.

What about those who made the maximum contribution to SERPS  and contributed for a lifetime of work up to retirement. They would certainly get a pension beyond the personal allowance of £11800 ?

10 minutes ago, denby45 said:

Paying tax on private pension is not relevant to the argument. Also I do know there is no facility for the government to tax your state pension at source. It is always paid gross and is supposed to be reconciled if you go over your personal allowance. I know many pensioners but I don't know any that get enough state pension to pay tax on it. The reason I asked about the numbers of pensioners is because I cannot find any figures online.

 

Den 

Paying tax on private pensions is relevant because the tax code would be increased to reflect the additional income from the state pension.

@denby45

https://www.gov.uk/make-a-freedom-of-information-request

5 minutes ago, evadgib said:

@denby45

https://www.gov.uk/make-a-freedom-of-information-request

Thanks I might try to find out.

 

 

Den

40 minutes ago, denby45 said:

Thanks I might try to find out.

 

 

Den

Choose your wording carefully or they'll reject it, citing cost or man hours 

HTH

Edited April 26, 20188 yr by evadgib