BT loses pensions case.

[staffordian]

The Local Government Pension Scheme changed from RPI to CPI probably a decade ago.

I very much suspect that they and Unison would have researched this in some detail - albeit with opposite objectives.

I therefore assume these things must depend on individual scheme wordings and conditions.

[DrBunsenHoneydew]

Depends entirely on the wording. The NHS scheme for example says it rises at the Treasury Rate, which gives the government flexibility to pay what they like so easily switched to CPI. Other schemes wrote RPI into the rules.

[BrummieDave]

It all comes down to the scheme rules, and I think that was the nature of the challenge to the proposed change at BT.

[Chrysalis]

There are statutory minimum escalation rates for pension in deferral and in payment - scheme rules can pay more but can't pay less.
The statutory minimum used to be based on RPI, so needed legislation to change/downgrade to CPI (I think this was around 2011). Whether an individual scheme can change to CPI will depend on its rules.
I seem to remember that the unions did challenge the change in the public sector schemes from RPI to CPI, but lost.

[ten0rman]

Hi,

My brother and I, both BT pensioners were discussing this only yesterday.

It's worth pointing out that the BT scheme is split into three sections - A, B & C. Section A was for those people with reserved rights to a civil service type pension (hangover from the GPO days). Section B was for those people who were employed by BT, or was it Post office Telecomms (?) after they were split off from the GPO and privatised (I think - it's a long time ago!). I can't remember much about it because we are talking 30-40 years ago, but all those people who remained in Telecomms employment at a particular date (we simply had to turn up for work on the appointed date to qualify) automatically had rights to both Section A and Section B, whichever was thought to be best by the pensioner-to-be about 3 months before actual retirement date which could be many years later. Later employees were automatically enrolled into Section B but had no rights to Section A. Section C was a new scheme brought in much later and its terms were different to Sections A & B.

Both Sections A & B have already had their increases changed from RPI to CPI. That was a few years ago. It appears that the different terms of Section C must not have allowed for this to happen, hence the court case which BT has so far lost.

This is why the numbers quoted in the press are as small as they are. Sections A/B numbers, mostly in payment now, are much higher.

Somehow, I can't see any chance of Sections A/B members being able to go to court to have RPI restored. There was discussions when we lost it, and the time to go to court would have been then, but it didn't happen, or if it did, BT won, but I suspect that in practice, the terms were that BT could change from RPI to CPI as they wished - probably tied somehow to civil service pensions.

ten0rman