Pilon IHR

Patpostie · Post by **Patpostie** » 18 Dec 2018, 17:16

So if someone appealed an IHR lump sum and won the right to their pension would only the severance (34 weeks)be paid back to RM? Been told it would also be the pilon? if this was the case why do you pay tax on it? Also has anybody had to do this?

daveyeff · Post by **daveyeff** » 18 Dec 2018, 17:56

you shouldn't have to pay anything back. if you win an appeal to receive your pension, then that would be because you are under the age of 55, but you are unable to work again. your IHR lump sum is compensation for losing your job.

Post by **RobertT** » 18 Dec 2018, 18:08

Ill Health Retirement has 2 options:

IHR with 34 weeks pay & PILON

IHR with immediate payment of pension

If you won an appeal to get your pension, then I believe you'll have to pay back the 34 weeks pay and PILON.

I assume you would also get a tax refund on the PILON amount.

Age has no bearing on being given IHR with pension. It will be unreduced at whatever age you're given it!

daveyeff · Post by **daveyeff** » 18 Dec 2018, 19:08

no Robert, I didn't mean about it being reduced. I meant you wouldn't get it if you were under the age of 55. unless you were unable to work again. that's the only circumstances ive heard of for receiving your pension under that age anyway. ive never heard of having to pay back the ihr lump sum though.

daveyeff · Post by **daveyeff** » 18 Dec 2018, 19:13

my partner got her ihr lump sum after being paid off, but ALSO got her pension unreduced. she didn't have to pay a penny back from her lump sum. she was only 51 when this happened. the understanding was though, that if she ever became fit enough to work again, then her pension would cease, until she reached the eligible age to receive it.

Post by **RobertT** » 19 Dec 2018, 03:37

daveyeff wrote:my partner got her ihr lump sum after being paid off, but ALSO got her pension unreduced. she didn't have to pay a penny back from her lump sum. she was only 51 when this happened. the understanding was though, that if she ever became fit enough to work again, then her pension would cease, until she reached the eligible age to receive it.

Did she work for RM?

If not, then different rules may apply.

daveyeff · Post by **daveyeff** » 19 Dec 2018, 06:11

no, but the same rules apply for anyone UNDER 55. if you are IHR under this age, then it has to be under the circumstances that you will not be able to work again in ANY capacity. be it mentally or physically. even with a different employer.

daveyeff · Post by **daveyeff** » 19 Dec 2018, 06:19

that's for IHR WITH PENSION by the way, if you are UNDER 55. if you are over it wouldn't matter.

Post by **RobertT** » 19 Dec 2018, 16:55

In a around about way I think we're actually saying the same thing Dave!

In RM you get IHR with pension if you're deemed incapable of ever working again in any capacity.

If you're just no longer able to work for RM, you'll get IHR with lump sum.

Age is irrelevant! You'll get whatever your medical condition dictates.

If you get IHR with lump sum and you're over 55 and choose to take your pension, that's up to you, but you'll get hit with the usual 5% per year reductions.

It may be different in other companies, but that's what happens with RM.

Going back to the original post:
Patpostie was originally given IHR with lump sum and he's successfully appealed that decision and has now been awarded IHR with pension. Therefore he has to pay back the lump sum and PILON.