Navy Net - Royal Navy Community

Register a free account today to join our community
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site, connect with other members through your own private inbox and will receive smaller adverts!

ROYAL NAVY TO GET NO PENSION

slim said:
Income tax was and still is paid by all service personnel at the same rates as anyone in the UK. An anomaly was though that even when ships deployed for two year commissions Jack still paid income tax. any civilian would have been able to claim it back. 22 years mans time was always the minimum service to qualify for a pension on the lower deck. I believe that Officers qualified after 18 years but for them mans time did not start until age 21.

Interesting anomaly. I suppose the MOD might be trying to claim that the "apprenticeship" period (under training/gaining experience) does not count as service. Some interesting questions arise to which I'd welcome answers:-

1) Were ratings who joined at 18 and completed 12 years from that age entitled to a pension, despite having spent time under training?

2) When ratings who had joined at 15 went to sea, presumably their work was less onerous to take account of their age? If so, what proportion of a man's workload did it officially constitute?

3) If over 18s were granted a pension after 12 years, why are those who joined as Juniors not entitled to a proportion of their pension per the proportion of man's time they officially worked?

4) Did a similar system exist for civillian apprentices ashore?

5) Is this pensions anomaly materially identical across all three services?

Steve.
 
Boys time didn't count towards pension rights in any case, so any time served when you were under 18 didn't help your pension rights with the RN.

I joined at sixteen and a quarter to avoid spending a lot of time a the G place, at that age I went straight to adult training at Mercury. From the day I joined I was treated in exactly the same way as those over 18 and expected to fully carry my weight with watchkeeping etc.

My first draft was the old Brocklesby, a converted Hunt Class Destroyer, she was trials ship at Portland. I joined her straight from training and after the first week kept watchs in the W/T office on my own. Because I was the only Junior onboard none of the rules regarding leave were enforced and I just went ashore and came back with everyone else, it was quite a shock when I joined my next ship, the Ulster and was restricted to Cinderella leave, until my 18th birthday.

The whole pension and tax situation for those that served in the 60's and up to 70 is disgraceful and if we had politicians (spit) with any decentcy would never have been allowed to happen
 
janner said:
Boys time didn't count towards pension rights in any case, so any time served when you were under 18 didn't help your pension rights with the RN.

I joined at sixteen and a quarter to avoid spending a lot of time a the G place, at that age I went straight to adult training at Mercury. From the day I joined I was treated in exactly the same way as those over 18 and expected to fully carry my weight with watchkeeping etc.

My first draft was the old Brocklesby, a converted Hunt Class Destroyer, she was trials ship at Portland. I joined her straight from training and after the first week kept watchs in the W/T office on my own. Because I was the only Junior onboard none of the rules regarding leave were enforced and I just went ashore and came back with everyone else, it was quite a shock when I joined my next ship, the Ulster and was restricted to Cinderella leave, until my 18th birthday.

The whole pension and tax situation for those that served in the 60's and up to 70 is disgraceful and if we had politicians (spit) with any decentcy would never have been allowed to happen

I have got this impression from other people. The reason I ask is that this anomaly itself seems worth testing as well as the others. If a Junior was doing the same work as the Adults then it is difficult to see what possible justification the MOD can make for witholding the pension other than as a matter of policy. The thing is, I recall reading in some official publication (unfortunately I cannot recall what) that Juniors did only a proportion of an Adult's labour and were thus compensated accordingly. Even assuming the official position had been consistently enforced, you ought to have received a proportionate pension contribution. If you did the same work and can prove to a court then you should be entitled to the full pension. I suppose the thing that I am pondering is whether a civillian MOD apprentice who joined at 15 was subject to the same conditions of service (pension wise) as yourselves. If so it would seem reasonable to test the case in Strasbourg on the grounds that the MOD would be treating civillian employees more favourably for similar work than Service personnel. Equally if civil servants at that time were entitled to pensions, as I am sure they were, then again the inconsistent treatment of servicemen appears legally anomalous and to lack legal equity. The legal question is of course upon which human rights criterion could such a case be brought.
 
To go back to the first question, perce, nobody pays into the armed forces pension scheme, serps yes,pension no. if you have pay statements that say that you have paid into an armed forces pension scheme, then sue, you`ll get all your money back plus. It was always known prior to 1975 that you needed to complete 22 years service, anyone that served at the time and didnt understand that, must have been hidden away somewhere and forgotten about, why should you get a pension for 12 years service? what next, a deferred pension after 4 years?
 
jpl_75 said:
janner said:
Steve
I refer you to my earlier referral

http://www.afpg.info/news.htm
Janner
with reference to the Armed Forces Pension Group, there is also the Combined Armed Forces Federation U.K. (www.caffuk.co.uk) who are also actively challenging the Government on this matter.

Have a look at my reference above, it looks as though the two aren't talking, it also annoys me that the RBL seem to sit on their hands on this issue
 
I was under the impression that there is a Preserved pension for those who served a minimum time (2 years I believe) but did not complete 22 years service (pre 2005)

The preserved pension is a percentage of the full one. ie if you served 11 years man time you are entitled do (on application 3 months prior to your 60th birthday) 50% of the full pension

Is this how others understand it to be ?
 
Tony_P said:
I was under the impression that there is a Preserved pension for those who served a minimum time (2 years I believe) but did not complete 22 years service (pre 2005)

The preserved pension is a percentage of the full one. ie if you served 11 years man time you are entitled do (on application 3 months prior to your 60th birthday) 50% of the full pension

Is this how others understand it to be ?

This is correct. But it only applies to those who served between 1975 and 2005. Veterans who left, or finished 3, 6, 9 & 12 year contracts before 1975 dont get a brass cent from government even after they reach the age of 60 Read here:-

Pre-AFPS 75 Factsheet
Factsheet explains the situation with relation to those individuals who left service prior to April 1975 and had not completed enough reckonable service to qualify for an Armed Forces pension. * Pre-75 Factsheet DOC [48.0 KB]

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/A...ations/Pensions/AFPS75/Preafps75Factsheet.htm

2006/07 Campaign to highlight the issue

In November 2006 Colin Challen MP for Morley and Rotherwell tabled Early Day Motion (EDM) no 67. Mr Challen secured an end of day adjournment debate, for 31 January 2007, on the issue of equal pension provisions for Service personnel, regardless of when they served in the Armed Forces.

In his speech in the House of Commons, on 31 January 2007, the then Armed Forces Minister, Adam Ingram, set out the legislative and policy background to pre-1975 pension arrangements, and asserted that there was no real prospect that this or any Government could afford the many billions of pounds that would be needed to address public sector pensions legacy issues. Parliament was lobbied on the issue on Tuesday 17 April 2007, by ex-service personnel and their representatives.

Mr Twigg, US of S for Defence met with Colin Challen MP and members of the AFPG Ltd on 25 July 2007 and re-affirmed the message that Adam Ingram gave in his speech in the House of Commons, on 31 January 2007.

Subsequent to the 25 July 2007 meeting AFPG Ltd conducted a post card campaign and boxes of post cards together with a petition were presented at No 10 Downing Street in November 2007. Also in November 2007 Colin Challen MP tabled Early Day Motion (EDM) 102 on the same issue.

A rally took place in Whitehall on 3 April 2008 to further promote the campaign
 
Bongobilly said:
Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 10:28 pm Post subject: Re: ROYAL NAVY TO GET NO PENSION

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
higthepig wrote:
Enlighten me, since when have pensions been deducted from pay? Military Pensions are paid out of the defence budget, since when did they become contributory?


Not sure when I started paying it but I was deducted SERP's money and it is now included in my old age pension dosh .
Serps is still in existance but they keep changing the rules .
My Navy pension was classed as Military pension

So ex Forces if they didn't qualify pension through time served would still get SERP related payments with their OAP at 65.

SERP's is State Earnings Related Pension. relating to your earning throughout your working life, so that you get a pension when you are 65. Military Pensions were non contributory (not like today's stakeholder), so if you did 12 years after the age of 18 and came outside you would get 12/ 22 of the Miltary pension, because that was all you were entitled to. Even when I was in the Navy, I was adding to my pension through FSAVC's, which have now been frozen until I get my full pension at 55.
There are some misconceptions here. First the pension was never worked out on 22 years, it was worked out on a full career of 37 years (18-55). Second the military pension is non-contributory but the AFPRB take it into account each year and assign a percentage to it ie it represents 7% of your salary. Pensons are index linked as previously stated and those that left at 40 and resettlement (not life) commuted will get around a 60-70% increase (check with Glasgow). Tony -p is correct about preserved pensions but I don't recall the figures or service required (it is more tha 2 years is it not?). The new pension scheme actually provides the same amount (very nearly) as the current pension but the issue is that you get a large chunk (the second gratuity and increased monthly payment - which are not a "pension") much later in life.

IMD
 
Think I 've written this somewhere before.

However for the guys who served between 1956 and 1975 there was no pension at end of service unless you served 22 years ''pensionable service''
They had engagements for 7years and 5 years reserve commitment
9 years and recieve higher pay
12 years usually for Tiffs Apprentice
14 years [9+5 years ]
At the end of all the engagements you were normally paid a bounty as a going outside bonus.

22years pensionable was from the age of 18 and had to include any time lost for DQ or other punishment . You left the RN one month prior to end of service time on discharge leave. Pension was paid immediately .
At age 55 years pension became index linked

After 1975 the pay laws changed to Military Salary ----
any time served was liable for a pension benefit from age 60 [with gratuity] So if you did 9 years then you would get 9/22nds of the pension
for the rate that you served as during your service.

The pre 1975 laws are perfectly clear regarding the rules at the time --
and the end of service bounty you recieved cleared the RN of any liability
of future payments.

Tough but ---Always read the small print .

Waffle regarding boys service and signing on -----my parents had to waive
their parential rights and the RN became my Guardian untill 18 years of age .

:nemo: :nemo:
 
Just to confuse the issue.
SERPS is no longer referred to as such, it is now "pre 97 additional state pension"
Someone at DWP obviously has time on their hands!

2BM
 
Greenie said:
However for the guys who served between 1956 and 1975 there was no pension at end of service unless you served 22 years ''pensionable service''
They had engagements for 7years and 5 years reserve commitment
9 years and recieve higher pay
12 years usually for Tiffs Apprentice
14 years [9+5 years ]
At the end of all the engagements you were normally paid a bounty as a going outside bonus.:

First I heard of it, I never received a bounty for 9 years service.
 
Greenie said:
The pre 1975 laws are perfectly clear regarding the rules at the time --
and the end of service bounty you recieved cleared the RN of any liability
of future payments.

Tough but ---Always read the small print .
:nemo: :nemo:

The rules may have been perfectly clear. but they were ungenerous and unfair, otherwise why did HM Government change the pension rules to make them more generous and fair post 1975?

HM government can find billions to bail out greedy bankers who made one big feckup to the UK's financial situation, but when it comes to bailing out pre 1975 veterans who receives no service pension at 60, Adam Igram says, we cannot afford it, Tough sh@t.
 

Latest Threads

Top