Letters from Trustees to postcomm

belle smith · Post by **belle smith** » 24 Feb 2009, 22:35

Thought you may be intrested to see these

http://www.psc.gov.uk/postcomm/live/pol ... rustee.pdf

http://www.psc.gov.uk/postcomm/live/pol ... Letter.pdf

img001.jpg

img002.jpg

in the first letter, Jane Newell states that,

"The Pensions Act 2004 clearly states that a pension fund in deficit is an unsecured creditor of the company."
if any of yous are worried about todays implied threat that the pension fund could be halved, don't be. For that to happen the goverment would have to allow a company it wholly owns to default on a debt to its creditors. There is zero possability of that happening!

BELIAL · Post by **BELIAL** » 24 Feb 2009, 22:47

Many thanks Belle .

belle smith · Post by **belle smith** » 24 Feb 2009, 23:20

Thats not the point I'm making.

The trustees have a very specific duty to look after benifits of members that have already been earned.
They have no say or power in relation to future pension provision.

The letter that the dept of buisness and enterprise relesed today with regaurd to the recomendations of the hooper commision is meaningless. The Trustees did not mention the part privitiseation. The Trustees have no say or intrest in who owns the company, and are only comenting on the hooper report with regard to the pension. ie. the recomendation of a crown gaurentee.

They have no option but to welcome this, they would not be doing their job if they did not welcome this.

The point i was making is that the linking of this with part privitisation is entierly fatuious. THE GOVERMENT HAS ABSOLUTLY NO OPTION but to offer a crown gaurentee, WITH OR WITHOUT THE PART PRIVITISATION!

ps. read the letters Postcomm should have allowed for a shorter deficit recovery period and or a passthrough system that the Trustees asked for. The trustees are the good guys.

Big Daz · Post by **Big Daz** » 28 Feb 2009, 20:19

LTB 176/09 paints a very different picture

The chair of the pension fund was flying solo and the rest of the trustes had been kept in the dark! The letter was not placed before the trustee board!

Post by **POSTMAN** » 28 Feb 2009, 20:37

it emerged that some Royal Mail trustees were stunned to hear about the letter from their colleagues backing ministers' plans.

One of them said that they had not even discussed the report.

“The first I heard of it was when I turned on the radio this morning. I have spoken to other trustees and none of them have seen the letter. It is outrageous,” the trustee told the Press Association.

The trustee, who wanted to remain anonymous, said the letter had “overstepped the mark” and questioned some of its details.

“There is a political dimension to this letter. There is a meeting of the trustees next week which is now going to be very interesting."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/p ... 796893.ece" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

belle smith · Post by **belle smith** » 02 Mar 2009, 21:49

[img]%20[img]%20%20[img]%20[/img][/img][/img]

k979aaa · Post by **k979aaa** » 18 Mar 2009, 11:10

Just received a letter from the trustees in which ms j newell has denied "that the trustees support part privatisation of the royalmail" and that "the trustee has no political agenda"!. The case deepens i wonder who could have leaked the letter :mfo maybe someone who does have a vested interest in the sale of royalmail :mfo cannot for the life of me think who though!. :mfo :mfo :mfo :mfo :mfo

Big Daz · Post by **Big Daz** » 18 Mar 2009, 11:20

Mandy says he published the letter not leaked it,

k979aaa · Post by **k979aaa** » 18 Mar 2009, 11:36

Big Daz wrote:Mandy says he published the letter not leaked it,

That just spin. :mfo

bogstandard · Post by **bogstandard** » 18 Mar 2009, 12:52

does a partial deficit exist as a byproduct of the arse falling out of the market thus affecting the valie of shares owned by the trust
i'm not saying that the deficit is totally because of this but it must be a factor, and if then this is the case would the value of the trust not rise and the deficit reduce if and when the market recoups its loses.

k979aaa · Post by **k979aaa** » 18 Mar 2009, 13:26

bogstandard wrote:does a partial deficit exist as a byproduct of the arse falling out of the market thus affecting the valie of shares owned by the trust
i'm not saying that the deficit is totally because of this but it must be a factor, and if then this is the case would the value of the trust not rise and the deficit reduce if and when the market recoups its loses.

You are right as the value of the stock market falls so the deficit indeed does increase if however the stock market increases so the deficit will fall but royalmail cannot abrogate it's responceability too all who are members of the scheme as it was their pension holiday which is why the scheme is in the state it is now!. And the government of this nation at the time nor the one we have now cannot be allowed to get away with that and the FRS-17 accounting procedures have only worsened it for all the pension schemes of the UK!.

terrace · Post by **terrace** » 18 Mar 2009, 19:33

Couple of questions Jane Newell neeeds to answer
1.Why has it taken so long ,nearly 3 weeks,for her to inform us?
2.Why weren't we told before Mandelson,what her thoughts were about the sell off in relation to the pension issue?
3.If she didn't want the letter to Mandelson made public ,why didn't she state so in the letter?
4.Why is it that the members are always the last to be informed,even the media know before us?
If she fails to answer any of the above,she is clearly not acting in the best interests of its members and therefore should resign.

belle smith · Post by **belle smith** » 23 Mar 2009, 17:05

Big Daz wrote:LTB 176/09 paints a very different picture

The chair of the pension fund was flying solo and the rest of the trustes had been kept in the dark! The letter was not placed before the trustee board!

I don't think Jane Newell even wrote the letter Daz.
you may our may not have noticed, but the letter leaked/published by Mandy wasn't signed! where as the letter you received recently (from trustees to members.) was signed!

of the 3 letters posted above 2 are signed! and 1 is not signed! (dated 21st July 2005) Last year i e-mailed Jane Newell with a quiery about the content of the unsigned letter, she passed the quiery on to Gerry Degaute (CEO of Royal Mail Pensions Trustees Limited) in his responce he claimed he was the actual author of the letter! reasonable to suppose that he may well be the actual author of the letter published by Mandy. Gerry Degaute is not a trustee (in fact i belive he is a Royal Mail employee.) but there is nothing improper in the letter (leaked by Mandy) except.

1. that it should have been explicitly stated that the welcoming of the recomendations of Hopper only related to the pension proposals, but this is already implicit in that it comes from the Trustees of the pension fund.

2. that (more seriously) it should not have suggested benifits to members could be cut by 50% although this is theoreticaly possable, it is Politically impossable (would involve insolvence for Royal Mail and no viable mail service in the whole of the UK, try explaining that to the public). It should be pointed out however that this letter was sent after a meeting between Mandy and Trustees, and Mandy may have requested the info without mentioning that he intended to publish it.

What is entierly improper is the way in which :mfo is politiciseing the Trustees.

ROYALMAILCHAT

Letters from Trustees to postcomm

Letters from Trustees to postcomm

Re: Letters from Trustees to postcomm

Re: Letters from Trustees to postcomm

Re: Letters from Trustees to postcomm

Re: Letters from Trustees to postcomm

Re: Letters from Trustees to postcomm

Re: Letters from Trustees to postcomm

Re: Letters from Trustees to postcomm

Re: Letters from Trustees to postcomm

Re: Letters from Trustees to postcomm

Re: Letters from Trustees to postcomm

Re: Letters from Trustees to postcomm

Re: Letters from Trustees to postcomm