Admininstration error

[Adam Schofield]

I received a letter today noting that an administration error has been identified in calculation of my HPS benefits. Specifically wrt the pension accrual rate before March 2001 if under 25 at date of joining (some time ago...) - and resulting in the benefits being overstated at my valuation when I left the scheme in 2011. They are going to provide a revised value by end September.

Any one else in the same boat? Any suggestions/thoughts from anyone welcome.
thanks

[John Ratsey]

This report, combined with the updating of contact details for scheme members a few months ago, has me wondering whether there is an ongoing systematic review of the scheme liabilities. The process could be construed as being good housekeeping but would also be required before trying to dispose of the scheme.

[sneddonj]

Hi, I'm also in the same boat as Adam. Received a very vague 1 page letter explaining there was an error in the pension forecast calculations linked to my age and time of joining (was 18 when I joined). I was part of the HPS from 1999 to 2007.  Confused and wondering what the impact will be on the value of the frozen fund. 

Welcome any other feedback / comments.

Thanks
Jen

[Steve_2]

Jen, I was in HPS from 1998 as a graduate. I've received my statement and there was little difference in my benefits to 31st December 2007 compared to my previous statement. It would depend on your salary though.

Adam, I'm not sure why you have to wait so long. I can give you the formulas if you wanted to wade through them.

Maybe those statements should also tell us how much we get if it goes to the Pension Protection Fund   

[Adam Schofield]

thanks for the comments. I have just emailed the Pensions team requesting the detailed calculation is provided as part of the revision - just so that I can be sure it is what it should be. The reason for the error mentioned in the letter is not at all clear in its meaning.
The letter did say I would not get the revised calc until end September, so I wait with anticipation...!

I maybe wrong here, but my basic understanding is that worst case is that we should get 90% of the benefit from PPF if CH2 support for the scheme is pulled and it goes under.

[SmartN]

Yes, I've also been affected by the error in calculating the deferred pension statements (over-statement)...very annoyed about an approx 4% reduction for me! This error must have reduced the schemes liabilities a bit! There must be quite a few others...I'm aware of 2 confirmed (in addition to Adam and Jen in this thread) and can guess that 5 others of similar age as me (I joined HPS in 1990, aged 23) who will be affected too. Perhaps we should all group together to join the one person who I know is taking the matter further?

[Rob Deakin]

Sorry I'm late in to this discussion. I'm affected too with about a 7% reduction in my stated benefits. Does anyone know if anybody did take this matter further? I'd keen to look in to it.

[Stephen Brichieri-Colombi]

We have written to the Trustees on this subject.
According to an article in the Daily Telegraph, the cash transfer option calculation depends on the funding ratio of the scheme. For the HPS,this  has not been officially calculated since 31st December 2008. Thus we believe the Trustees cannot properly calculate the cash transfer value, and any figure they produce must be an estimate, liable to a very significant margin of error.
Clearly, the proper course of action is to produce the Valuation Report for 31st December 2014 asap. The Pensions Regulator (tPR) has the power under the Pensions Act to decide the assumptions to be used if the Trustees and Halcrow cannot agree, but for unexplained reasons tPR is not taking action. We are writing to him about this, and may need to prod him via our MPs.  The more we are, the more effective this will be: at the High Court hearing, a letter was produced from tPR to Halcrow expressing their concern that so many Halcrow pensioners had written in about their concerns over the takeover, which they did in response to those of us who went on to form the HPA. This illustrates the value of collective action, and one of the best ways those affected can help themselves is by urging others to join the HPA so we can coordinate action. 
See also my post on the estimate of the HPS deficit.

[John Ratsey]

We have written to the Trustees on this subject.

I had got the impression that the discussion here related to certain HPS members being notified of a decrease in their potential pension due to the wrong accrual rate being used for some of their period of service. Estimation of the funding ratio and hence the transfer value is a different, but related, subject given that if a substantial number of HPS members have had their benefits reduced then the funding deficit will have shrunk a little.

To clarify about the change in the accural rate, the 1995 Pensions Act removed the mandatory minimum 5% increase effective April 1997 but the HPS trustees chose to not not apply the change until 1st March 1999. I wonder whether those who are affected by the adjustment were staff who joined HPS in the intervening period when, perhaps, the lower (rate of inflation) accural rate was deemed to apply to new joiners but their benefits had been calculated using 5% pa.

Discussion of the changes brought on by the 1995 Pensions Act is included in the 1995-96 HPS Report  and the 1996-98 HPS Report.