Hello... I wonder if anyone can help with this, please? I'm writing on behalf of a friend who applied to DWP for pension credit way back in June. For some reason, DWP took a very long time (6 months!) to come to a decision... they have finally decided that he is entitled to PC of around £80 per week, and that it will be backdated. Does this mean he will get the full 6 months PC, or do they have a limit on the amount they will refund? I think I saw somewhere that no matter how much they owe you, they limit it to 3 months back pay... or am I wrong? Thanks in advance for any help, Theda.

READ MORE HERE: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/service-to-civvy--2

Afternoon People, The last time i used this site i was on the Working Programme and Ingeus was making my life hell. With the help i received here i managed to get through it and have now gone onto Pension Credit. I'm 63, 64 next April . What i've wondering is what will happen when i reach 65, the State Pension age, will my payments be changed again. I'd been paying into two small private pensions which i stopped paying years ago, i think they total a bit over £18k at the moment, i've not withdrawn anything from them yet. I knew PC was income related and didn't want money in the bank which could have stopped me claiming. So what my question is, if the Standard Pension at 65 isn't income related ?????? Am i better waiting until then to make a withdrawl, or withdraw 25% now to spend before i need to fill another form in, and perhaps have to send copies of my bank statements ? And if i did withdraw 25% now, could i get the other 75% after i was 65 ? Thanks.

Early exit charges for people taking money out of their pension pots will be capped at 1%, the financial regulator has confirmed. The new rules will affect anyone taking money out of a personal pension from 1 April 2017. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) said providers who already charge less than 1% will not be allowed to raise their fees. Those taking out new pension contracts will face no early exit charge at all. Workplace pensions will be subject to the same rules, but these will not come into effect until October 2017, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37985525

Cold calls offering exotic investment opportunities to people cashing in their pension pots will be banned under government plans. Ministers estimate eight [problem] calls are made every second to UK residents, leading to an annual loss of £19m. Advice services and legitimate companies said such calls had "plagued" the pensions world for years. The ban, which could be enforced with fines of up to £500,000, would not cover texts and emails. However, the government will gather views on extending the proposed ban to all electronic communications. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38029133

NHS Pension Problem I have recently been TUPEE'd back to the NHS, April 2016, and was informed that because I had previously been with NHS, 2007-2013 and had opted to recieve my NHS pension when I left, I was not entitled to rejoin the NHS Pension Schemme. Subsequently, I was enroled on the goverment NEST pension scheme, which means my employer, NHS only pays into the scheme the minimum 1% contrubution. I have asked if they would increase my contributions to bring them in line with my colleagues but they have declined stating they have no obligations to increase their contributions. Any feedback would be helpful as to whether I have recourse or not. Thanks

Just a thought. If you are on ESA and you have not got savings above the threshold of £6000.00. Is it possible to try and save by the help of family members to save for an old age pension, not to be touched until your official retirement age? This is just a general enquiry on behalf of my friend who is already worrying for her retirement, if she lasts that long! Any advice would be welcomed. Thank you, and if it's in the wrong place please move the post to where it should belong. I put it here as she is on ESA. The silly thing here is, she can hardly live on her ESA as it stands at the moment, never mind save e bean!

Hi Recently come of age 65 and applied for my pension. No problem all ok. However upon getting my pension it would appear i cant have Carers Allowance and this will be stopped . Is this right as i still care for my wife on a daily basis. How can this be right as i feel a pension is not a benefit but cash i have paid in to the system . Your comments invited :mad2:

Hi There, This is a long story so hope you are sitting down and got a cuppa. I was medically retired from the NHS in 1997 and placed on IB, I also had a pension from NHS/CIS for about £70 now £73.(2016) The DWP people were aware of the pensions from the beginning as the Hospital filled initial forms in. In about July 2012 was converted to C ESA wrag group which I had a mandatory reconsideration and placed in support group in about Feb2013. I then received a letter saying my C ESA was due to run out in August as id had my year i asked them what i should do and they said if i'm still Ill i could claim IR ESA to which i sent back forms. The next letter says my ESA will continue. Just been reading up and it states that if in support group C ESA can continue indefinitely as long as you satisfy the medical conditions. Im sure i sent pension details also. Then in April 2016 they said i didn't tell them about pensions and that I was overpaid, and that they would write to me again. This weekend i have received a letter Interview under caution as they want to speak to me over my pension freud. So im stressed to hell, after googling a couple of thing am i reading things right. Because my Pension was disregarded for IB in 1997 and in 2001 the rules where changed and pensions where now being taken into account and it is stated anyone before this date stayed on it whatever the size of their pension. Surely then my Pension should be disregarded. So now i'm being done for freud because they say i never told them apparently they new my smaller pension of £12.57 so they took that out of my ESA, should they have taken it out if i was pre 2001. I don't know why they had no paperwork on pension 2 £57, even so its less than the £85 threshold they suggest. Phoned DWP and asked if i'm on C ESA and its less than £85 why are you taking it they said i'm on Both C ESA and IR ESA so they can take it. Why am i getting IR ESA if i'm entitled to be on C ESA indefinitely because i'm in support group. Please Help me

Sorry if ive posted in the wrong place, I have recently got divorced and having an NHS pension have had to surrender 24% to my ex. I have just had a letter from her solicitors demanding £3117 as admin and implementation fee which after checking on the nhs pensions website is valid, my issue is, as an ambulance man I don't tend to carry that sort of money round ( I wish I did) I have bad credit because of the marriage and after paying £425 pcm maintenance I don't have a lot left to live on, any ideas for a solution to this matter anyone, it would be appreciated.

Can anyone tell me what happens to the carers allowance my wife receives for looking after me when she gets a reduced state pension next year. Thanks for any information given. pin62.

As research shows fraudsters targeting people under-55 and encouraging them to access their pension early is on the increase, Which? investigates some of the causes. City of London Police figures show that in the 12 months to February 2016, £13.2 million was lost to pensions liberation [problem]s – an increase of 26% on the previous year. Pension liberation schemes target people under-55 and encourage them to withdraw or transfer their pension savings. However, pensions are designed to only allow savers access to their money after they turn 55. Accessing pensions savings before 55, unless in exceptional circumstances such as ill-health, is not permitted and consumers face losing up to 70% of their pot as a tax penalty. And yet we found that companies offering early pension release for those under-55 are clearly advertising their services online. These sites offer early access to pension savings, potentially exploiting consumer confusion with the new pension freedoms, and don’t explain the huge losses at stake, often charging exorbitant fees. Many of these sites, which could potentially be [problem]s, also appear prominently when searching online for phrases such as ‘cashing in your pension’ and could be contributing to an increase in pensions liberation [problem]s. The Financial Conduct Authority has issued a clear warning to savers about opting for early pension release, but adverts for early pension release often downplay the risks. http://press.which.co.uk/whichpressreleases/pension-[problem]s-cost-savers-millions/

Hello you kind people. I believe my long standing case fighting an energy company has, to some extent, contributed to my anticipated divorce. After 42 years of marriage, I am considering divorce. Indeed as you always advise, there are many financial factors to consider. Nevertheless, in the absence of money, I need to make some preparations at this stage before letting him know of my action. My husband has a private investment pension pot. It is set up in connection to his company and he shares the scheme with one other director partner. I am sorry to describe it so naively but I really have no idea of the scheme name. I know that he has included shares, a number of properties and perhaps other assets in the pot. I believe he is entitled and benefits from annual cash withdrawal up to a percentage. He can add to the pot by buying and selling those, new properties and shares. This pot does not bare any connection to me. However my concern is that I need to know how I can protect my share of interest in the pot in the case of divorce. He has kept all our assets within this pot and I guess immune from SHARING THEM WITH ME! Once he finds out about my divorce action, he can easily empty out the pot in no time. What is the name of this scheme? And can I put a freeze of some sort over his assets and at what stage? Do I have a chance or is it a lost cause? I hope I can get some opinions from you kind people here; believe me, I know I should go to a lawyer! many thanks and as always I am grateful for your support.

New to this so would be grateful for help: When I joined my company 5 years ago, my employment contract said they would contribute 20% into my pension fund. I have just found out they stopped this 2 years ago and didn't tell anyone. They are trying to use a clause in the contract which says The company reserves the right to change this pension policy in order to conform with Government Legislation .. Are they legally correct please? I was not aware that the Government have made any changes that allow this Thank you for your help

OK - here is my tale of woe (I hope that I don't get too many sniggers - and it may seem a bit long, but I wanted to give some background!). Waaaaaaaaaay back when Maggie was introducing "trickle down" as a way of enriching her cronies, the government was encouraging us to transfer to personal pensions. Now I was but a callow youth at the time, still living with my mum, and (mostly) believed what the people in charge said - so that's what I did... In the intervening years I have had the usual ups and downs that we all seem to have - marriage, divorce, births, deaths, redundancies etc etc. Now comes my problem - a few years ago my mum became very frail - and, in fact, was just starting to show the early signs of dementia. Because of this, myself and my then partner moved her into our house. We brought all of her papers with her (all unsorted and stored in boxes). Unfortunately my relationship with my partner couldn't stand the strain with mum in the house, and we broke up. About a year later my mum died - and so I had to go through all of her stuff. I discovered some of my old paperwork amongst her effects, but not very much. A bit later, due to redundancy, I had to sell that house but, by that time (10 years ago) I had met a charming lady who lived some way away - and she invited me to move in with her - and we've been living together ever since. OK so far. I am now approaching my 55th birthday and have recently got a few "have you thought about what you are going to do with your pension" type of letters from various sources. It was only then that I realised, to my horror, that I had absolutely no idea about that pension that I had set up - the paperwork was nowhere to be found at my mother's. I don't even know what company I took the damn thing out with. Is there any way (some central register or something) that would allow me to find out?

Not sure if I have a case here but I know you are a great bunch with heeps of intelligence between you so I thought I would give it a go. I had a small private pension from an previous employer some 30 years ago and due to circumstances decided to access it last year when I turned 55. Now I know what they say about keeping funds in the pot until your 60, which is when they would normally pay out, but the option was always there and I needed it, so applied. However, there was also a clause which said the following; We will deduct 27% from your benefits if you decide to take your pension early at age 55 (to preserve the pot for those that stay in the pension until they're 60) This can be reduced to 11% if you are experiencing financial hardship and have supporting evidence (not verbatum, but that's what it meant) Anyway, as my husband had died and I was out of work, having been his carer for 11 years (on & off) I duly applied for the 11% deduction due to hardship and sent in supporting evidence of his death, my financial commitments and bank statements to prove funds available. I received a letter just to say that my pension would be paid at the deduction rate of 27% and provided me with the breakdown accordingly. I was desperate and my sister was terminally ill at the time so was unable to contest it at the time. My sister has since died and I just wondered what type of situation I would have been expected to be in, in order to have qualififed for the higher pension payout? I'm inclined to call them later today but would be very interested in what your thoughts are please peeps?

I qualified for my army pension in 1987 due to being unable to work through illness. They refused to pay me. I have not worked a day since and am even classed as disabled. They owe me over £87,000. I didn't fight for it due to mental problems. Can I make them pay up now? Thank you in advance.

Background: A widow, aged 90, on the basis of ignorance, initially refused a pension based on her husbands earnings. She didn't realise her error, and when she approached the organisation to redress the error, it was suggested that she may have been too late. Question: What is the legislation which suggests that Trustees of a Pension Fund may ignore a legitimate beneficiary of a pension fund, and may justify that they may not have to distribute a pension from that fund, because of the time element.

Hi everyone, Any help or advise on where to go on this would be most welcome please as it's a battle I've been fighting for just over 6 years, without a break, and I NEED to get the Pension Service to put right the ultra vires decision (on the wrong legislation) and recieve the back pay owed. I am 110% correct in my findings from both DMG and legislation, the Pension Service are completely wrong and no-one will look at it. I list below a copy of the letter I have last sent, a brief outline of events leading to the wrongful withdrawal, by the Pension Service (PS), of allowable housing costs, with evidence. Brief Background History As a result of a divorce and Court proceedings an order was issued for me to acquire my ex-husband’s share in the house within a specified time limit of the Divorce. We had a joint mortgage for £30000 on our home. I had to remortgage (i) to redeem the original mortgage balance of £27108 and (ii) add £22500 equity acquisition to be paid to my ex-husband’s solicitors within a Court-specified time limit and (iii) to cover legal aid and other acquisition costs involved. However the costs amount was not only unknown but unexpectedly delayed until late 2008 because of solicitor errors. There was absolutely no problem with IS and they let me know that acquiring my ex-husband’s equity share in the house was an allowable housing cost. I received housing costs as Support for Mortgage Interest (SMI), paid direct to lender, as part of IS. The relevant letter from Wendy Steele, IS Decision Maker dated 02.06.06 quoted: “The Income Support (General) Regulations 1987, No. 1967, Sch 3, para 4(6)(a), 15(1), 16(2), DMG 29825”. After my having to involve the Law Society regarding solicitor error and resulting Legal Services Commission (LSC) error, they were resolved in my favour and as a result the LSC wrote and apologised for their error and issued the amount of legal costs to be paid back for legal aid of £5875. There was also a £500 arrangement fee and £350 broker’s fee which had to be added to the legal aid bill of £5875 making basic acquisition costs of £6725. In August 2007, on reaching age 60, I was transferred from Income Support to Pension Credit and housing costs, including the equity acquisition of my ex-husband’s share of the home, remained the same without question, as confirmed in writing by the Pension Service (PS) State Pension Credit Regs, Schedule 2, para 11, DMG 78407 – 78410. However they failed to allow the full original mortgage redemption of £27,108 because evidence had been burned by my ex-husband so I had no proof of full allowable costs, e.g. conservatory (est) £4200). Only £17776.66 was allowed as per receipt evidence. Since the beginning of the re-mortgage IS (and later the PS) were advised of the delay in submitting legal costs because of solicitor and LSC errors but after the acquisition costs were established, late 2008, I requested that the PS added these costs to my SMI now that the matter was resolved and the amount was known. I repeated the request for acquisition costs to be added several times between late 2008 and July 2009 because each request was ignored. In response to yet another request to add costs, in July 2009 “Abdul” (no surname given), instead of adding acquisition costs to SMI, informed me that I was not allowed to acquire an interest in my home and that SMI for it was stopped! The reason given was that the PS had made a mistake. This error of one lone PS employee caused the whole fiasco from which I have suffered very badly. His error opposed all correctly decided housing costs by IS and PS Decision Makers and all other current Government information whether written or online and Case Law and this miscarriage of justice to my very great detriment has not been addressed or corrected! I appealed which was denied. I telephoned IS who were at a loss as to know why the PS had stopped SMI because acquiring an interest in my home was an allowable housing cost. Buying out an ex-partner (my case) is even exampled in detail in Decision Makers Guides (DMGs) (78405, 78407, 78409) and clearly specified in other Government information and Case law. I have struggled without ceasing to get this miscarriage of justice corrected whilst my financial situation has become more and more extremely serious. This goes against the very reason for the legislation being passed in the first place. I repeatedly requested specific responses to the following because these were all correctly applicable to my case as initially determined by both IS and the PS: (i) the relevant legislation (SPC Regs 2002, Schedule 2, para 11), (ii) the relevant DMGs 78405, 78407, 78409, (iii) all current online and documented Government information and (iv) all relevant Case Law The specific responses were not addressed and, because of my persistence in trying to get the PS unlawful disallowance of legislated housing costs reversed, I was told by the PS that I would no longer be responded to except by way of acknowledgement of my correspondence. I have been disgracefully treated, dismissed and ignored over a long period of time. I have been denied any opportunity to represent myself at any interview, local or otherwise despite repeatedly explaining the extremely severe financial difficulties and anxiety/distress caused to me by the PSby the refusal to address the specific issues raised which would have resulted in reinstatement of my housing costs. Would you very kindly urgently look at the simple and uncomplicated facts relevant to my claimant category (residential homeowner acquiring an interest in my home) and the applicable legislation relevant to it, SPC Regs 2002, Schedule 2, para 11, the DMGs that apply to Schedule 2, para 11, 78405, 78407, 78409 and if necessary confirmatory Government information and Case Law and reinstate my housing costs from the unlawful disallowance. I am happy to supply any information and/or documents should they be required. To avoid any complication in looking at the above request, I would add that I am not and never have been a renter and therefore I have never been in receipt of housing benefit via the local council. I have only re-mortgaged once to acquire my ex-husband’s share in my home by Court Order. My case is very simple and straightforward: I am a residential homeowner acquiring an interest in my home which is an allowable housing cost as per: State Pension Credit Regs 2002, Schedule 2, para 11: Loans on residential property 11.—(1) A loan qualifies under this paragraph where the loan was taken out to defray monies applied for any of the following purposes— (a)acquiring an interest in the dwelling occupied as the home; or (b)paying off another loan to the extent that the other loan would have qualified under head (a) above had the loan not been paid off. (2) For the purposes of this paragraph, references to a loan include also a reference to money borrowed under a hire purchase agreement for any purpose specified in heads (a) and (b) of sub-paragraph (l). (3) Where a loan is applied only in part for the purposes specified in heads (a) and (b) of sub-paragraph (1), only that portion of the loan which is applied for that purpose shall qualify under this paragraph. The mandatory guidance referenced to the legislation above and which Decision Makers are obliged to follow is DMGs, 78405 – 78409 as copied below. Note: The suspension of IS from 6th March 2006 to 10th May 2006 referred to above (on the screenshot from the Pension Service dated 2010) was due to the remortgage funds being released through my bank to pay my ex-husbands solicitors for the acquisition. This is normal banking procedure and the money was paid out immediately. A decision maker decided that the remortgage funds constituted savings and therefore I wasn’t entitled to any Income Support or housing costs. This inappropriate decision was readily acknowledged by the people I spoke to at the IS department but I still had to go through the process of Tribunal to get this folly reversed by 10th May. None of the above circumstances (screen-shot) relates to a residential homeowner acquiring an interest in the home. That legislation is found in SPC Regs 2002, Schedule 2, para 11 and DMGs 78405, 78407, 78409. None of the DMG in the PS screenshot refer to acquiring an interest in the home or to Schedule 2, para 11. The DMGs which reference para 11 have been omitted by the PS and the PS Decision Maker has justified his error with irrelevant and unreferenced DMGs and faulty reasoning based on legislation totally inapplicable and irrelevant to my case. This Decision Maker’s faulty reasoning can be seen on examination. He stated above that increases are only allowable in points 1-5 listed. This is an error and the descriptions of points 1 and 2 above especially shows no understanding of the legislation. In point 1 above there is no increase in housing costs in a relevant period (1994/5 legislation brought in to prevent up-marketing by a full homeowner taking out a loan (e.g. change of lender, equity release) to either stay in the same home or move to a different one. The housing costs payable currently will not be increased. There is no relevance to acquiring an interest in the home in this provision of Schedule 2, para 5(7)(a)(b). This legislation is not interchangeable with Schedule 2, para 11 and cannot be applied to para 11. DMGs clearly reference each one and neither is interchangeable. In point 2 above there is no increase in housing costs in a relevant period (1994/5 legislation brought in to prevent up-marketing by changing from renting to buying in a relevant period. If a renter acquires an interest (becomes owner/co-owner Rent to Buy Scheme especially) then he must qualify by being in receipt of housing benefit payable to renters via the local council the week before the acquisition and the amount of SMI payable direct to lender will not exceed the amount of housing benefit previously paid via the local council. There will not be an increase in housing costs allowable. This legislation is not interchangeable with Schedule 2, para 11 and cannot be applied to para 11. DMGs clearly reference each one and neither is interchangeable. In points 3 and 4 above the circumstances have to be individually determined by the Decision Makers and some increase in housing costs can be allowable. In point 5 above other housing costs specifically exclude involvement of para 11 (residential homeowners acquiring an interest in the home) and there is no reference to para 11 in the relevant DMG. Many thanks and I would be so grateful for any help on how to get this sorted as I'm just hitting my head on a brick wall with every letter written. TPP x

READ MORE HERE: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/dwp-announces-extra-support-for-armed-forces-spouses-and-civil-partners-to-help-protect-their-state-pension

Not sure if this is the right place to put this but im sure I`ll be guided I have an army pension after serving 18yrs and a war pension at 30%, I then worked off shore for a further 18yrs, during this 18 years offshore 2014/2015 I was offshore holland when i returned to the uk to work offshore I was told that I had to catch up with my NI which I did at the end of last year 2015, I left offshore due to disability in december and have claimed ESA however they have told me I cant get contribution based ESA as I hadnt paid enough NI in 2014/2015, my point is I still caught up with it and paid it, this is driving me crazy Regards skye

As the CPI was minus 0.1% as at 30 September 2015 the Government has confirmed there will not be an increase in April 2016. All AFPS Pensions will therefore remain at their 2015 level.

Pension s cams, in which criminals cheat people out of their pension pots, are increasing. There are different types of s cam. They often begin by someone giving you a ‘cold call’ - contacting you unexpectedly about: an investment or other business opportunity that you’ve not previously spoken to them about taking your pension money before you’re 55 the ways that you can invest your pension money A cold call doesn’t have to be a telephone call. It can be any type of contact they’ve made with you unexpectedly, eg an email. S cammers may offer you tempting ways to invest your pension pot, eg investing it in a new hotel being built in an exotic location. Most of these offers are fake but can appear very convincing. Their aim is to get you to cash in your pension pot and transfer the money. Once you’ve transferred your money into a [problem], it’s too late. You could lose all your pension money as well as face tax of up to 55% or huge additional fees. How to tell if it’s a s cam Watch out if an individual or company: cold calls you about your pension money through a phone call, a text message, visiting you in person, or in other ways says you can access your pension money before 55 and that they can help you with this encourages you to take out a large lump sum, or your whole pension pot as cash, and to let them invest it for you asks you to transfer your money quickly, even sending documents to you by courier - never make a rush decision about your pension money uses words like ‘pension liberation’, ‘loan’, ‘loophole’, ‘free pension review’ or ‘one-off investment’ offers you an investment described as ‘unique’, ‘overseas’, ‘environmentally friendly’, ‘ethical’ or in a ‘new’ industry https://www.pensionwise.gov.uk/[problem]s FCA steps up s cams campaign ahead of pension freedoms The FCA has stepped up consumer warnings over investment [problem]s as the 6 April pension reforms deadline approaches. People should reject cold calls, check the FCA’s warning list and take financial advice to tackle fraudsters targeting their pensions savings, the regulator says. The regulator urges people to use its dedicated S camSmart smart.fca.org.uk/"]website to spot the warning signs of a [problem], view a list of suspect firms and smart.fca.org.uk/page/get-independent-advice"]find an adviser through directories.

Today (6th April 2016) marks the official beginning of the 2016/17 tax year, which brings with it a raft of changes to pensions, tax and savings. Here's a guide to what you need to know. https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/handy-guide-tax-010447129.html?cache=clear

A few days ago a vitally important judgment was released concerning (once again) the matter of Liability Order 'costs'. This particular case was an appeal and was heard in the High Court but unlike in the recent case of the Reverend Nicolson, this particular local authority (East Northamptonshire District Council) had prepared a schedule of standardised costs of the type encouraged by Judge Andrews in the Reverend's case (paragraph 46). The claimant; Edward Williams represented himself and his appeal concerned (amongst other points) the following: One: That the summons served was an abuse of process because within it, it included an amount of costs (£75). He contended that the Regulations make no provision for the summons to include an amount by way of costs and that costs could only become due once, and if, a liability order were made Two: That including the amount of costs on the face of the summons was an abuse because it was an unlawful demand for money which the local authority had no right to make at that time. He contended that the costs were not due and owing at the date of the summons . He pointed out that the complaint on which the summons was based made no reference to the costs of £75. He submitted that it was an unfair manipulation of the Court process to include an amount for costs on the face of the summons, particularly when the only real summons cost was £3. He suggested that the recipient of a summons would be misled into believing that the costs of £75 were fixed and could not be debated or challenged. Three: He wanted to appeal the earlier decision regarding the sum of £75 and whether the costs had been 'reasonably incurred'. Most importantly; (and this is of significance to all local authorities who had been waiting for this case to be heard), Mr Williams considered that when compiling a schedule of costs, East Northamptonshire Council were wrong to include figures for: Information and Technology costs. Chip and Pin costs. Pension deficit funding.