Prospect CMD Greater London Branches

Supporting & Protecting Members at work

Login/out

Upcoming Events

Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31

Benefits of being Registered

As across this whole website, some articles are only available to registered users, if you are member of the union register if not apply to join and then register - you know it makes sense.

*** News Flash ****

This site is being updated. However because of the immense amount of material on the site it is taking me some time. When the new site is populated this site will be closed and the updated site will be launched. In the meantime new information is only being added to the new site . You can see how the updated site is coming along here.

*****************

Correspondence (MPs, BT, Trustees)

AVCs - MartinC & BTPS

User Rating:  / 0

Additional Voluntary Contributions (AVCs)

A member (Martin) who had spent a sum of money in October 200 on buying AVCs so that he would get extra pension. He also expected that he would receive RPI increases was upset that following the unilateral imposition of CPI uprating rather than RPI. That change will have a significant effect on the return that he will get for the money invested in AVCs. He wrote to the Chair of thr BP Pension Scheme (BTPS) Mr Paul Spencer on 14 January 2012 - PDF of that letter here.

In April, almost 3 months later Martin received a reply from a Pensions Manager Amanda Charlton - PDF of that letter here. That reply did not address the issue raised by Martin and merely repeated what Martin and the rest of us knew about the change in indexation from RPI to CPI. Whether from ignorance or design this does seem to be BTNPS initial response to questions, amply demonstrated by the correspondence I am having with BTBPS and which I will publish in due course.

Martin responded with a letter to the Technical services manager - PDF of the file here -- asking that his question be dealt with under the BTPS Internal Dispute Resolution Procedure (IDRP) and points out that the previous reply had failed to answer his question.

This drew the big guns and on 22 May (only just over a month this time) Martin got a reply from Agnes Lynch the NTPS company Secretary - PDF of that letter here. Basically it is a "Dear John" letter, although MS Lynch did explain why she had decided that Martin should get that for which he had paid. However, BTPS's ineptitude continues with the astounding claim that "If you do not accept my decision then within six months of receipt of this letter you can request that we arrange for your complaint to be considered under Stage 2 of the BTPS IDRP, where a decision would be made by a sub-group of three of the BT Pension Scheme Trustee Directors. This would have the effect of the offer above immediately being withdrawn and any offer would then be subject to the Stage 2 decision." Implying that they were going to take back the extra pension Martin had bought with his AVCs and which he has been receiving for some time. If true it is unbelievable, if it is just a left over from a standard letter it is disgraceful and inept and highlights the contempt with which BTPS treats us.

 

 

October 2011 Cox-Gummer-Lynch

User Rating:  / 0

The Caveat

Cox — Gummer — Lynch Correspondence October 2011

Following a discussion between Tony and his Local MP, Ben Gummer wrote to the BT pension Scheme Trustee in April 2011 — full text in this PDF. In essence he asks how the trustees came to the decision to link increase to CPI rather then RPI and about that decison in relation to the 2008/9 reform of the BTPS.

Agnes Lynch the Company secretary to BT Pension Scheme Trustees limited responded later in April — full text in this PDF. She managed to ignore some of Ben Gummer's questions and argues, like the red queen, that words mean what she says they do.

Ben Gummer copied Lynch's response to Tony who further responded to Ben Gummer picking up the errors and omissions in Lynch's letter — full text of that in this PDF. Ben Gummer wrote back to Lynch attaching Tony's letter and making some other points — full text of that letter is this PDF.

Agnes Lynch responded in August 2011 continuing her ridiculous attempt to defend the indefensible. Particularly astounding is her bare faced claim that the  words "Section B pensions are guaranteed to increase each year in line with RPI". only meant Guaranteed to rise [although that is untrue as well as the year with negative RPI we received no rise]. She doesn't say why the phrase "in line with RPI " was added, just that it has no meaning. She says "... the reference to "guaranteed" is not seeking to "guarantee" RPI or any other inflation measurement, but to provide members with confidence that their benefits will definitely be increased." The full text of that letter is in this PDF.

April 2011 Kate Hoey MP Correspondence a constituent

User Rating:  / 0

The following is the ongoing discussion and exchange of correspondence between Tony and his MP Kate Hoey.

  • 8 March 2011 — Tony met Kate Hoey to raise the issues using the points in our General Briefing document.
  • 9 March 2011 — Kate Hoey to Tony, Steve Webb, and Ian Livingstone
  • 19 March 2011— Steve Webb replies to Kate Hoey
  • 2 April 2011 — Tony writes to Kate Hoey responding to the points made by Steve Webb

I will update as it progresses

May 2011 Gavin Barwell MP correspondence with Constituent

User Rating:  / 0

RE: Vote on Indexation of Pensions ~ BT Pensioner

 

Subject

RE: Vote on Indexation of Pensions ~ BT Pensioner

From

MOF

To

'BARWELL, Gavin'

Sent

24 May 2011 11:59

 

Dear Gavin,

 

I am very disappointed as you have not read my letters or email properly or responded appropriately, I request that you do again?  I repeat, why have you and the Government allowing BT to change its pension indexation scheme from RPI to CPI using your legislation and penalize me?.  The government does not fund the BT’s pension scheme in any way, this issues effect millions on pensioners who are in private sector pension schemes.

 

Feb 2011 Tim Farron correspondence

User Rating:  / 0

From: Brian
Sent: 09 February 2011 11:26
To: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Cc: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Subject: PENSIONS ROBBERY - Ref PRES 042

Dear Mr Farron

I thank you for your letter of the 26 th January 2011, responding to mine of the 16th November 2010.  Although, I noted it was sent unsigned.  I trust that this was an oversight, as I have copied this correspondence to my pensioner association (National Federation of Occupational Pensioners).