Widow distraught as RM refuse to payout husband's pension

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Widow distraught as Royal Mail refuse to payout husband's pension

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/life/consu ... -22178247/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

MARY CARSE was devastated when her husband Paul died in her arms, just four months after he was diagnosed with a brain tumour.

Grief-stricken Mary, 50, who had nursed Paul at home through his f inal weeks, contacted me, completely exhausted, after two months fighting with Royal Mail over Paul's £23,000 pension lump sum.

Mary, of Mungoswells, East Lothian, said: "I can't go on like this. They've still not paid. The money would have covered the funeral bill and given me enough to live on.

"It's unbearable. They keep asking for more and more paperwork. I shouldn't have to beg. I've been through enough."

Paul, who worked for 11 years as a postman and in the sorting office, was diagnosed with an inoperable tumour in September.

Farm worker Mary said: "He came offa night shift and was not making sense. He could hardly string two words together.

"I thought they were going to tell me he'd had a stroke or something. I fell to pieces when the specialist broke the news."

The couple, who had been together for 17 years, discussed the funeral and organised paperwork, including his pension.

Mary said: "He filled out a nomination form and signed it, witnessed by our GP. He wanted to know the money would come to me after he was gone."

Paul passed away on January 10, aged 53. But when Mary contacted Royal Mail, they agreed to pay her £97 a month but not the £23,000 lump sum she was due. She said: "They claimed they had not received a nomination form from Paul. They told me to go to a lawyer."

Mary contacted a solicitor, who sent off the relevant paperwork.

She said: "I had to prove who I was. If Royal Mail didn't believe me, why pay the £97 a month?"

Mary then had to fill out another form, with Paul's family details.

She said: "It was the hardest thing I'd had to do in my life. Even the lawyer said he had never seen such a ridiculous form.

"Royal Mail wanted Paul 's marriage certificate from his first marriage, all his family details including his mum and dad's dates of birth, their death certificates, his sisters' names, addresses and dates of birth and details of his deceased brother's children."

Still Royal Mail would not pay and that's when she called me in. Mary said: "I am a nervous wreck. Please help."

I got on to Royal Mail. They said: "Part of the reason for the delay was various forms had to be completed and we had to seek legal advice. These issues have been resolved and Mrs Carse will receive payment this week."

Mary said: "Thank you so much. You were there to help when I needed it most."

Glad I could help at such a painful time.

[gb93]

This is the reality postal workers and their families are facing.

Wonder if this poor guy was in the union and if he was did his family recieve any assistance from them.

I always thought unions were there to protect the weak not the strong.

But going by some posters on here that is totally wrong, protect the strong and let the weak go to the wall seems to be the message on here.

[steven100]

I'd predict that the relevant paperwork was completed at the time before RM moved the goalpost. RM are only out to annoy as many people as possible and blame the workers.

[Lincox]

Talking about pensions, I believe that Royal Mail pensions have not increased pensions this April citing that inflation is below zero. I find this difficult to believe when I have a final salary occupational pension with a previous employer and they have just upgraded my pension by 3.7% in respect of the increase in the retail price index over the last year. To what extent are we being misinformed by the Trustees of Royal Mail Pensions and what duress are they under from the Royal Mail Board.

[plainpat]

Talking about pensions, I believe that Royal Mail pensions have not increased pensions this April citing that inflation is below zero. I find this difficult to believe when I have a final salary occupational pension with a previous employer and they have just upgraded my pension by 3.7% in respect of the increase in the retail price index over the last year. To what extent are we being misinformed by the Trustees of Royal Mail Pensions and what duress are they under from the Royal Mail Board.

From letter received from RM Pension Plan

"The Royal Mail Pension Plan provides for eligible pensions to be increased in April to reflect any increase in the Retail Prices Index for the 12 months up to the September in the year before. I am writing to advise you that the Retail Prices Index figures published in respect of September 2009 showed a 1.4% fall in prices over the previous 12 months. There is no provision to decrease pensions in payment. Therefore, in April 2010, your pension (before) tax) will be unchanged.............."

So yes, zero increase for this year

[Lincox]

Hi PlainPat
This is the letter I received from my Pension provider.

I am pleased to tell you that your pension will increase to ..... per month with effect from 1st April, 2010. The increase this year is 3.7% based on the movement in the Retail Prices Index for the year to february 2010.

So could it be possible that the Retail Prices Index fell between September 2008 and 2009 and yet between February 2009 and February 2010 it increased by 3.7%. We are talking differentials here of six month periods and over 5% differential in increase/decrease.

If this is the case I will be expecting a rather large increase in payment next year from the Royal Mail pension.

[plainpat]

Yes, it is the case Lincox.

The review for BT pensioners this year was based on the year January to January and I think (from memory, read it in UNITE magazine a few weeks back) they got between 2.5 and 3%.

It seems we at RM got caught out by the retail price index figures being so low at the end of 2008/beginning of 2009 (or it may have been that the way the figures are worked out was changed).

I believe the maximum percentage increase you can ever get in one year is 5%.

Edit: Actually the Trustees do have special powers to increase this if they choose (last done in 1993) for Section C Pensioners (Section A/B seems different)

You can read more here http://www.royalmailpensionplan.co.uk/4 ... -increases

I got caught out as well last year when the increase was 5%. I had only been taking the pension then for 6 months (took early retirement from RM at age 57 1/2) and so got caught by the pro rata payment rule, so I have only had a 2.5% increase in 18 months At least my other income (s) have been doing better

[Lincox]

Yeah well I shall be making sure that they continue with the same period of time Sept to Sept as I would not put iit past them to use the period that most suits them (ie the lowest increase)

[hepzibah]

I think the reason they wouldn't pay the lump sum was simple. If no nomination form has been completed, as the article states it wasn't, then the lump sum becomes part of the deceased's estate. If there is a will, then it is disposed of in accordance with that will. If there is no will, then the intestacy rules have to be followed - a widow gets this much, children that much, siblings so much etc, depending on the size of the estate. That's why they would have needed her husband's family details.

Moral of the story - complete a death benefits nomination form and make a will!!!

[Lincox]

I think you are wrong in believing that this becomes part of a persons estate. Pensions/Death in Service Benefits are written as a discretionary trust and it is up to the trustees of the pension fund (ie Royal Mail Pension Trustees) who will receive the benefits. I would go as far as saying that the trustees, if in their discretion there are no worthy beneficaries, then they are entitled not to pay out at all.

[Lincox]

The reason this is so, is that the benefits do not then exacerbate any potential inheritance tax liability. If they were to become part of a persons estate, then they would be subject to inheritance tax liability assuming the estate exceeded the nil rate band.