Ex-pat pensioners see pension inequalities depending on where they live
On September 2, lawyers representing 13 pensioners and the government will face each other in Strasbourg at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).
The battle for the pensioners – many struggling after choosing to join family abroad and not realising the effect on their pension – has been long.
Annette Carson, who moved to South Africa in 1989, started in 2002 taking the UK government to court – and after a succession of appeals, the case has now reached the Grand Chamber of the ECHR.
The pensioners argue the decision to freeze their pensions is discriminatory and that some are forced to choose between surrendering a large part of their pension entitlement or living far away from their families.
Jim Tilley, chairman of British Pensions in Australia (BPiA), explained UK pensions should rise for ex-pats in the Commonwealth as it is the norm for all other countries which have similar state age pension schemes and the UK does index for some countries.
"The main principle at stake is that we are treated differently to many other UK expat pensioners. We claim this is unfair discrimination. That is the basis of our case," he said.
Mr Tilley added the chances of success were around 50/50.
Peter Kennan, chairman of the Canadian Alliance of British Pensioners (CABP), stated it was hard to be optimistic with the cause facing so many hurdles in the past.
James Nelson, at the BPiA, said: "We have had so many knock-backs - four to date in courts and so much resistance from UK MPs - that it is difficult to be other than hopeful.
"Our current lawyers are on top of everything, but the government is being very nasty."
However, Mr Kennan added: "With the case being passed to the Grand Chamber there is a reasonable chance."
He explained he knew of one case where two brothers had decided to leave the UK from Birmingham. One had gone to Canada and one to Jamaica, and the brother in the Caribbean now had a larger pension as it had not been frozen.
"To many it is a major source of income especially if they have gone to the frozen countries to retire with their families. And think too of the Trinidadian who goes home form working on London transport to retire. He does not get the pension indexed but his mate with whom he worked goes home to Barbados or Jamaica and does," said Mr Tilley.
The pensioners have received indications of support from 325 MPs, and they hope their cause can gain the same momentum as with the case of the Ghurkhas.
"If the court found in our favour, the verdict could be simply telling the government they have been naughty and not to do it again, or to pay back all the back pension, or gradings in between," said Mr Kennan.
In the case of a favourable verdict, the government has six months to produce a plan explaining how it will implement the verdict, during which time, Mr Kennan said the pensioners will "be calling on all sources to see what we can do to influence the government".
A full verdict could take a further six months, in which time, Mr Kennan said the pensioners will "be calling on all sources to see what we can do to influence the government".
Mr Tilley also explained the cost of increasing the pensions could save the government cash.
"The government's continued claim that they cannot afford to pay us is flawed."
He added the cost of increasing their pensions was "chicken feed" and the government was saving on the long-term costs of caring for elderly people in the UK.
"There are the regular costs we save the government by leaving the country to retire or stay abroad; no National Health costs imposed, no annual heating allowances to pay, no subsidies for public bus transport, none of the various social security benefits which apply to the elderly, no pension credits claimed.
"All these cost savings, we calculate, exceed the cost of indexing and should encourage the British government to export their 'olds', and in doing so release more dwellings for the incoming migrants thus saving the continued spread of the urban footprint."
The Department for Work & Pensions has not responded to comment on upcoming case.
In 1999, minister Jeff Rooker described the fact some pensioners saw pensions rising and others frozen as "illogical".
He told parliament: "I have already said that I am not prepared to defend the logic of the present situation. It is illogical. There is no consistent pattern.
"It does not matter whether a country is in the Commonwealth or outside it. We have arrangements with some Commonwealth countries and not with others. Indeed, there are differences among Caribbean countries. This is an historical issue and the situation has existed for years."
He claimed it would cost some £300 million to change the policy for all concerned. [rc]
© 2004 - 2009 www.myfinances.co.uk
August 6, 2009
UK: British pensioners in Canada, Australia, South Africa challenge frozen pensions
.
LONDON, England / myfinances.co.uk / Pensions / August 6, 2009
By Daniel Barnes
Brits retiring abroad in Canada, Australia and South Africa are set to take on the government in court over frozen pension payments.
Currently Brits heading abroad to these three countries along with many other Commonwealth nations and take a state pension find their benefits do not rise with inflation – as they do in the UK.
However, if they retire to an EU country, the US or a number of other nations, their state pension continues to rise. Freezing is highly selective.
A consortium of pensioners from South Africa, Australia and Canada are now lining up to challenge the government on its policy.
Ex-pat pensioners see pension inequalities depending on where they live
On September 2, lawyers representing 13 pensioners and the government will face each other in Strasbourg at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).
The battle for the pensioners – many struggling after choosing to join family abroad and not realising the effect on their pension – has been long.
Annette Carson, who moved to South Africa in 1989, started in 2002 taking the UK government to court – and after a succession of appeals, the case has now reached the Grand Chamber of the ECHR.
The pensioners argue the decision to freeze their pensions is discriminatory and that some are forced to choose between surrendering a large part of their pension entitlement or living far away from their families.
Jim Tilley, chairman of British Pensions in Australia (BPiA), explained UK pensions should rise for ex-pats in the Commonwealth as it is the norm for all other countries which have similar state age pension schemes and the UK does index for some countries.
"The main principle at stake is that we are treated differently to many other UK expat pensioners. We claim this is unfair discrimination. That is the basis of our case," he said.
Mr Tilley added the chances of success were around 50/50.
Peter Kennan, chairman of the Canadian Alliance of British Pensioners (CABP), stated it was hard to be optimistic with the cause facing so many hurdles in the past.
James Nelson, at the BPiA, said: "We have had so many knock-backs - four to date in courts and so much resistance from UK MPs - that it is difficult to be other than hopeful.
"Our current lawyers are on top of everything, but the government is being very nasty."
However, Mr Kennan added: "With the case being passed to the Grand Chamber there is a reasonable chance."
He explained he knew of one case where two brothers had decided to leave the UK from Birmingham. One had gone to Canada and one to Jamaica, and the brother in the Caribbean now had a larger pension as it had not been frozen.
"To many it is a major source of income especially if they have gone to the frozen countries to retire with their families. And think too of the Trinidadian who goes home form working on London transport to retire. He does not get the pension indexed but his mate with whom he worked goes home to Barbados or Jamaica and does," said Mr Tilley.
The pensioners have received indications of support from 325 MPs, and they hope their cause can gain the same momentum as with the case of the Ghurkhas.
"If the court found in our favour, the verdict could be simply telling the government they have been naughty and not to do it again, or to pay back all the back pension, or gradings in between," said Mr Kennan.
In the case of a favourable verdict, the government has six months to produce a plan explaining how it will implement the verdict, during which time, Mr Kennan said the pensioners will "be calling on all sources to see what we can do to influence the government".
A full verdict could take a further six months, in which time, Mr Kennan said the pensioners will "be calling on all sources to see what we can do to influence the government".
Mr Tilley also explained the cost of increasing the pensions could save the government cash.
"The government's continued claim that they cannot afford to pay us is flawed."
He added the cost of increasing their pensions was "chicken feed" and the government was saving on the long-term costs of caring for elderly people in the UK.
"There are the regular costs we save the government by leaving the country to retire or stay abroad; no National Health costs imposed, no annual heating allowances to pay, no subsidies for public bus transport, none of the various social security benefits which apply to the elderly, no pension credits claimed.
"All these cost savings, we calculate, exceed the cost of indexing and should encourage the British government to export their 'olds', and in doing so release more dwellings for the incoming migrants thus saving the continued spread of the urban footprint."
The Department for Work & Pensions has not responded to comment on upcoming case.
In 1999, minister Jeff Rooker described the fact some pensioners saw pensions rising and others frozen as "illogical".
He told parliament: "I have already said that I am not prepared to defend the logic of the present situation. It is illogical. There is no consistent pattern.
"It does not matter whether a country is in the Commonwealth or outside it. We have arrangements with some Commonwealth countries and not with others. Indeed, there are differences among Caribbean countries. This is an historical issue and the situation has existed for years."
He claimed it would cost some £300 million to change the policy for all concerned. [rc]
© 2004 - 2009 www.myfinances.co.uk
Ex-pat pensioners see pension inequalities depending on where they live
On September 2, lawyers representing 13 pensioners and the government will face each other in Strasbourg at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).
The battle for the pensioners – many struggling after choosing to join family abroad and not realising the effect on their pension – has been long.
Annette Carson, who moved to South Africa in 1989, started in 2002 taking the UK government to court – and after a succession of appeals, the case has now reached the Grand Chamber of the ECHR.
The pensioners argue the decision to freeze their pensions is discriminatory and that some are forced to choose between surrendering a large part of their pension entitlement or living far away from their families.
Jim Tilley, chairman of British Pensions in Australia (BPiA), explained UK pensions should rise for ex-pats in the Commonwealth as it is the norm for all other countries which have similar state age pension schemes and the UK does index for some countries.
"The main principle at stake is that we are treated differently to many other UK expat pensioners. We claim this is unfair discrimination. That is the basis of our case," he said.
Mr Tilley added the chances of success were around 50/50.
Peter Kennan, chairman of the Canadian Alliance of British Pensioners (CABP), stated it was hard to be optimistic with the cause facing so many hurdles in the past.
James Nelson, at the BPiA, said: "We have had so many knock-backs - four to date in courts and so much resistance from UK MPs - that it is difficult to be other than hopeful.
"Our current lawyers are on top of everything, but the government is being very nasty."
However, Mr Kennan added: "With the case being passed to the Grand Chamber there is a reasonable chance."
He explained he knew of one case where two brothers had decided to leave the UK from Birmingham. One had gone to Canada and one to Jamaica, and the brother in the Caribbean now had a larger pension as it had not been frozen.
"To many it is a major source of income especially if they have gone to the frozen countries to retire with their families. And think too of the Trinidadian who goes home form working on London transport to retire. He does not get the pension indexed but his mate with whom he worked goes home to Barbados or Jamaica and does," said Mr Tilley.
The pensioners have received indications of support from 325 MPs, and they hope their cause can gain the same momentum as with the case of the Ghurkhas.
"If the court found in our favour, the verdict could be simply telling the government they have been naughty and not to do it again, or to pay back all the back pension, or gradings in between," said Mr Kennan.
In the case of a favourable verdict, the government has six months to produce a plan explaining how it will implement the verdict, during which time, Mr Kennan said the pensioners will "be calling on all sources to see what we can do to influence the government".
A full verdict could take a further six months, in which time, Mr Kennan said the pensioners will "be calling on all sources to see what we can do to influence the government".
Mr Tilley also explained the cost of increasing the pensions could save the government cash.
"The government's continued claim that they cannot afford to pay us is flawed."
He added the cost of increasing their pensions was "chicken feed" and the government was saving on the long-term costs of caring for elderly people in the UK.
"There are the regular costs we save the government by leaving the country to retire or stay abroad; no National Health costs imposed, no annual heating allowances to pay, no subsidies for public bus transport, none of the various social security benefits which apply to the elderly, no pension credits claimed.
"All these cost savings, we calculate, exceed the cost of indexing and should encourage the British government to export their 'olds', and in doing so release more dwellings for the incoming migrants thus saving the continued spread of the urban footprint."
The Department for Work & Pensions has not responded to comment on upcoming case.
In 1999, minister Jeff Rooker described the fact some pensioners saw pensions rising and others frozen as "illogical".
He told parliament: "I have already said that I am not prepared to defend the logic of the present situation. It is illogical. There is no consistent pattern.
"It does not matter whether a country is in the Commonwealth or outside it. We have arrangements with some Commonwealth countries and not with others. Indeed, there are differences among Caribbean countries. This is an historical issue and the situation has existed for years."
He claimed it would cost some £300 million to change the policy for all concerned. [rc]
© 2004 - 2009 www.myfinances.co.uk
