Comments on: Pensions Protection

By: Godfrey Smith

Godfrey Smith — Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:39:32 +0000

I think the gov needs to realize the huge damage done and message sent loud and clear that compensation for failed pension schemes will be manipulated to minimise cost to the public purse. \\\\\\\\\\After waiting 12 years for compensation for a regulatory failure of my pension I just received an amount equal to just 10% of my losses in a system that provides no transparency of actuarial efficacy …So why bother with pension provision? Thats the message/loud and clear? Stating its all we can afford right now is no answer ….the sytem must be dair and transparent ..Equitable Life compensation is none of these

By: andrew j ward

andrew j ward — Thu, 23 Aug 2012 13:27:09 +0000

PENSION PROTECTION FUND CURENT SCHEME DEFICITS ARE BETWEEN 350BILLION AND 290 BILLION . The ppf claim that the "vast majority " of schemes can achieve this with "modest increases in contributions and recovery periods .This debt is greater than the countries debt and the uk governemnt cannot even balance the books what hope the small companies . THE SIGNIFICANT MINORITY of schemes that cannot afford the contributions will fail approaxmently half a million to 1 million peple will lose their pension and job .The government will not act because the "vast majority" is the banks the supermarkets and the private utility companies they will just push up the prices to fund the deficit . The solution we need to push back the retirement age to the state retirement age fro all private final salry schemes .This would free the crises caused by the quantative easing of this governement and free funds to generate growth not early retirement.

Comment Tags: 350 BIILLION FINAL SALARY PENSION HOLE

By: andrew ward

andrew ward — Thu, 23 Aug 2012 13:18:02 +0000

pension protection fund allows pension contributions to be filed each year to reduce the ppf levy (tax)on running the pension scheme however the audit cost at presenting the figure means small schemes below 20 employees are unable to submit the contributions as the figure has to be entered by an actuary the cost of doing so is more than the reduction in levy so only the large banks and supermarkets can afford to have their tax reduced. SOLUTION JUST ALLOW 90% of the unaudited contribution figure to be used on figures below £50,000. The d&B appeal procedure. The company failure score can be improved howvever the cost is between 6000 and 9000 a year ,this means that the large pension funds can adjust their accounts to read a better score card .Small schems are not allowed to find out how their score is assembled without paying more than the levy . The solution the same rights for assesing data held on a individual should be given to companies . D&B uses "flawed" score card methodolgy yet no rights to apeal on the use of data is permitted by the pension regulator .Their should be a right to apeal to the PPF if information used by D&b methodolgy can be showed to be flawed.

Comment Tags: ppf and d&B appeal process

By: George Morley

George Morley — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 17:03:41 +0000

Above it says : Regulations in this category are designed to ensure that occupational pension scheme members receive the pension they have been promised, or – in the event that their employer becomes insolvent at a point their pension scheme is underfunded – meaningful compensation. So if this is true then the government will be giving us compensation for our pension losses due to their freezing policy. So stop the freezing ! YOU MUST BE BLIND OR STUPID IF YOU CANNOT SEE THE DAMAGE THAT YOU ARE DOING TO NOT ONLY THE PENSIONERS BUT THE IMAGE OF THE GOVERNMENT IN THE EYES OF THE REST OF THE WORLD. THAT IS IF YOU HAVE A CONSCIENCE.

Comment Tags: frozen pension

By: Linzie Liddell

Linzie Liddell — Mon, 02 Apr 2012 12:44:10 +0000

Must ensure that people’s pensions are fully protected in the event that (through no fault of their own) the pension that they have paid into all their lives is threatened when a company becomes insolvent.

By: Dave Eastabrook

Dave Eastabrook — Tue, 20 Dec 2011 18:37:18 +0000

Family business owner. State should look after state stuff like pensions, maternity, paternity, sickness - i.e. benefits. Businesses should look after business. All this onerous legislation we have to do, and money we can lose to advantage takers "throwing a sickie" makes it impossible for micro businesses to consider employing people, even though we could do with (paid) help, just to stay the same - or grow into bigger businesses. Scrap the lot and start again, but do not consider voluntary codes - they don't work and never will. Any company pension scheme should be state audited, same as private pensions schemes. Companies should not be forced to have any sort of pension scheme, it shpould be up to them if they need to offer incentives to attract empoyees. For most companies, they don't these days, survival and employment is all. But companies should not be able to expect people to do overtime (stay late) - for no pay. Companies should NOT be able to use any pension fund to "invest" in the company, this is theft. Companies should not be allowed to contribute to employees' pensions - just pay more. It's used as a perk, but more often than not it's abused by companies, or used as a "kidnap benefit", to restrict the ability of employees to move around in the workplace. I'm afraid the only answer to pensions is that the state must provide. Form submission doesn't work by the way, if you have the security on your web browser you should have.

Comment Tags: benefits, burden, business, Red Tape, state

By: Peter Burrows

Peter Burrows — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 13:27:04 +0000

When you join a scheme you expect it to be honoured.It is not reasonable to expect people to make different arrangements past a certain age 55 .They do not have the ability to replan.If pension agreements are to be changed they should be fair and phased in to take account of where people are in their working life.

By: John Foolkes

John Foolkes — Tue, 12 Jul 2011 09:53:07 +0000

You must, must, must keep these regulations. No-one can live their life again and make different pension arrangements due to a financial collapse. When public sector pensions were set up in the 70′s councils recieved millions of pounds in staff contributions. Most spent this on new schools and there was a spending bonanza. 40 years later those same employees are being told that pensions are not affordable- well whose fault is that? If there were no robust legislation that pension could be easily moderated acording to ‘affordability’.

By: Vince Butler

Vince Butler — Wed, 29 Jun 2011 20:19:37 +0000

Self regulation and voluntary codes for pension protection, no way, not ever. Evidence from the catasrophe the finance & banking industry has created in recent history has prevented any trust in honesty and integrity that voluntary codes would ever work. The legislation didn’t, the government didn’t and voluteer codes won’t.

By: Ralph Owen

Ralph Owen — Wed, 18 May 2011 20:38:47 +0000

Legislation should provide the strongest possible protection of pensions. People spend their lives working to secure a comfortable and safe retirement. Financial security plays a most important part in this.
Revision and development of regulation should be constantly seeking to provide secure pensions for those who invest in them throughout their working lives. Regulation should ensure the security of the investment, maximise the final value and demand the severest of penalties for those attempting to abuse peoples pension rights.