What happens to pension contribution.

Yep, all that sounds about right, the only thing I was doubting was that "GEC got their[contributions back]".

"Roger" wrote

The main reasons people misunderstand what I post are because they can't read, can't understand, or both.

This is probably due to a lack of intelligence or education.

Recently, however, it's also been a symptom of mindlessly jumping on a passing bandwagon with a salivating eagerness to prove me wrong.

Are you related to him - you seem to have the same mental deficiency?

Were you over the previous limit at the time that they changed it?

If you were, then they ought to have had some "transitional rules" to allow you a pension based on your service to that point....

"Les Invalides" wrote

If the previous limit had been (say) 3 years, and you had service of (say) 4 years at the time that they increased the limit to 5 years, then you would have already accrued those 4 years pension benefits. They should have had transitional arrangements to give you those 4 years' worth if you left before the new 5 year limit.

On the other hand, if the previous limit had been (say) 4 years, and you had service of (say) 3 years at the time that they increased the limit to 5 years, then you would not have actually accrued any benefits. If you decided to stay in their employment after the 3 years service, it would then have been based on the new rule of the 5 year limit, and so again you would not have actually accrued any benefits.

"Les Invalides" wrote

You did agree to it for future service from that point, by continuing to work there.

"Les Invalides" wrote

No you wouldn't; PPP's weren't introduced until April 1988, and you must have started at IPC no later than around 1983 (you had been there nearly five years, sometime before 1988...).

"Les Invalides" wrote

If they actually *did* promise it, then you should have taken them to court to get it when you left. Why didn't you?

"Les Invalides" wrote

Vulgarity removed.

wrote

I shouldn't think so - I don't even know him!

wrote

Is that what you say to anyone when they show how you are wrong?

You obviously don't know what you're talking about.

"Lord Turkey Cough" wrote

You appear to have just copied what I said. Didn't you have anything to say yourself?

If you can't back up your comments above, just say so!

If you can't back up your comments above, just say so!

Tim posted

I don't know. They didn't consult me about the changes so I don't know when it happened.

ISTM they ought to have done lots of things that they evidently didn't do. But there was no way of making them do these things.

I expect they just did what they did because they could. Like a dog scratching its balls.

It depends what you mean by "not accrued any benefits". Most reasonable people would think that, all the time you were putting money in a pension scheme, you were accruing benefits. They wouldn't expect that at the end of that time the trustees would be able to say, "You know all those years you gave us money, you thought you were accruing benefits? Well actually - it's quite amusing really, you've got to laugh - you weren't. What do you mean, why? Because we say you weren't. Is that all right pal? No? Oh dear. Here's your contributions back. And you know all the money we've earned by investing your contributions over the last five years? We're keeping that. We're going to spend it on whatever suits us. You don't think that's fair? You think you should have been able to put something towards your pension, just because you were working for us? Ha ha ha ha ha. Aaaaaaahhh, ha ha ha ha ha. Now f*ck off and die in poverty."

Mind you, I suppose that by "not accruing any benefits" you might have meant "putting money in the pension fund without getting anything in return, and not having any practical recourse for that". In that case, you're probably correct, strictly speaking. I'm merely pointing out what a reasonable person would think of the ethics of a pension fund that behaved like that.

Nonsense. If I had decided to stop working there I *still* would not have got any benefits. And in any case, they didn't tell me they were changing the conditions, so I didn't even get the chance to choose.

Was it not the case that one could put money in some kind of personal fund before 1988, even if it wasn't called a PPP? I seem to remember something of the kind. What did self employed people do in those days?

Well, it was in the recruitment ad I answered ("attractive company pension scheme", the weasel wordage went).

Probably too busy, too poor and too tired, with a full time job and a squad of small kids to look after. The scum who have their snouts deep in the trough rely on that kind of thing, so they can wallow in their own excrement with impunity.

"Lord Turkey Cough" wrote

Let's see if you'll just copy this:-

"Lord Turkey Cough" doesn't know what he's talking about.

"Les Invalides" wrote

You should have been given a 'scheme booklet' detailing the main rules of the scheme, or at least sight of one and the chance to read the actual Trust Deed & Rules if you wished. If anything changed in the scheme booklet (such as the change of limit we're talking about), then they'd need to change it...

"Les Invalides" wrote

Did you ask to have a look at a scheme booklet, and point out in that which rule(s) you thought they were breaking?

"Les Invalides" wrote

Most reasonable people wouldn't just guess, they'd check the scheme booklet and/or trust deed & rules.

"Les Invalides" wrote

They used section 226 contracts, commonly called "retirement annuities". They'd probably only get a return of contributions from them, too, if they stopped contributions in the first few years. Oh, and employers wouldn't be contributing to S.226's so the pension benefits, if any, would only be from the worker's contributions...

"Les Invalides" wrote

Did the ad say you'd get pension benefits if you left within 5 years?

"Les Invalides" wrote

Ah, you mean you decided that you'd rather spend the time on other things? Fair enough - that's your choice.

"Tim" doesn't know what he's talking about.