Retired expats lose pensions discrimination case

Justice?

I am not at all surprised that this case was lost by the plaintiffs. It seems that the only reason for the decision is the cost to HMG. There is NO Justice and this case just proves it. Solicitors and Barristers all grin at me when I talk about there being no justice. They know that it is true, but use the system and often get the result that they want. The result is nothing to do with justice, though.

Posted by: Chris Amos

Justice for ex-pat pensioners

The ECHR ruling will understandably be hugely disappointing news for the appellants, but the Court's judgement is compelling. It has to be understood that State pensions are not made from a pension fund, but come from general taxation, and since the ex-pats are not now contributing to UK taxation, they cannot now make a claim on that source of UK revenue.I am referring here to those states where there is no reciprocal agreement, and those representing the ex-pats would have had a better case if they had pressured the UK government to get such agreements in place. The countries most affected are Canada and Australia, where I believe most of those affected are now living.

Posted by: James Redman, Libra Financial Management

What is the rationale?

I have seen no rationale for the position of HMG other than, "We must prioritise UK pensioners" or, in other words, we don't have enough funding. It does seem unfair that one group of people who made the same contributions as others should be traeted less favourably for no reason other than that they elected to retire abroad. I suspect that this is piece of mindless means-testing Socialism. If they can afford to retire abroad etc. etc. It would be a fair and deserved outcome for HMG if many of those desriminated against in this way decided to move back to the UK as soon as their health begins to fail and place an enormous burden on the UK health and services more than commensurate with the small annual incremental pension payments being denied.

Posted by: Philip Townsend

Justice? No Justice

I am no lawyer far from it but Canada and Australia are they now not part of the commonwealth did we not have links with them at some stage! No quite right Chris Amos this is not justice strange that when it suits the EU they can make the following statement. "To accept [the] arguments would be to lead to judicial interference in the political decision as to the redeployment of public funds," it adds. “Judicial Interference in the political decision” what rubbish they continue to interfere in our every day lives and have the audacity to say that. The whole thing is about money that this Government does not want to pay and nothing less forget the legal aspect they just twist matters to suit and a lot of behind the scenes agreements I am sure, am I cynical about government yes I am.

Posted by: Jay

IHT

Am I not right in thinking that unless the pensioners living in Australia and Canada have declared themselves "non-dom", their estates could be liable to UK Inheritance Tax? If so, do the latest tax rates apply or are they kept at the rate prevailing at the time of emigration. I think that Philip Townsend has got it spot-on.

Posted by: Philip Bray

No justice

If these people paid for their UK state pension, how can they in all justice be deprived of indexed state pensions? They are being cheated. If you lent me £100 twenty years ago, and I paid you back only £100 today, you would feel cheated.

Posted by: Nolan Meyer

Well said Philip Bray

This government by their actions are implying the people living abroad want their cake and eat it. I say fine, if that is how they want it, as Philip Bray has said, the individual HAS had their ties to the UK severed by HM Government and stuff the IHT. I hope Oz and Canada stick two fingers up in return and say no IHT for you then. The better solution would however be to GET a double taxation agreement and reslve it that way. Whatever happens, the current situation is not justice....

Posted by: Phil Castle

Life isn't fair

You know the rules, you make a decision, you have to live with it. Unless you don't like the rules. Then rather than change your decision, you try to change the rules. Isn't that reasonable? I blame Gordon. Even though these rules have been in place for many years, it's still his fault. Everything is.

Posted by: Richard

No Intellectual consistency

@Richard and others. Your arguements do not stand up to scrutiny. First, everyone paid the same contributions and everyone has tax deducted at source when the pension is paid. At least to be consistent, HMG should pay pensions to expats without deducting tax. Then the arguement that expats pay no tax in the UK is valid.If you are making your arguement based on VAT on UK services that is unfair because the whole point of VAT is that it impacts only the goods and services actually consumed and is, therefore, entirely fair to all. Second, these overseas pensioners are making no demands on UK services, including public services and the NHS so there is a saving to HMG in comparison to their UK based peers. Third, it's a long slippery slope when people start to accept any Government policy applied indiscriminately to one group over another on the basis that "The world isn't fair but you know the rules the Government made". Government should not be allowed to introduce arbitrary policies without fair and reasonable cause and, in this case, I can see none. By way of disclosure, I am a long time non-dom living in Singapore who paid the full fees for my kids to attend UK Universities and with no claim on a UK pension so my interest here is purely academic.

Posted by: Philip Townsend

Justice for ex-pat pensioners

Almost all those commenting on this matter have made the case that ex-pats have suffered injustice as a result of the ECHR decision. I can understand and sympathise with that view, but I believe that the ECHR ruling is a side-show to the real injustice underlyingh its ruling. The essential fact to be understood in this matter is that all who paid "National Insurance contributions" during their working lives were deluded into believing that these contributions were building up a retirement fund. All post-War British governments have fostered that delusion. In fact, all NI contributions go into the general taxation pot; there was never a fund out of which retirement pensions could be paid. At each annual Budget presentation, successive governments were urged to scrap this fiction, and every government refused to do so; the belief however, remains firmly fixed in the minds of many pensioners, when protesting "I've paid all my contributions". The real injustice is that no government has taken steps to eliminate the discrimination against one particular class of contributor, who emigrated to certain countries rather than to certain other countries. The ex-pat representatives in the ECHR case might have stood a better chance of success had they based their case on that discrimination, rather than directly on the index-linking issue. If there is no reciprocal agreement with some countries, why did successive UK goverments not try to get such agreements in place - could it be that there were no votes in it?

Posted by: James Redman, Libra Financial Management

Oz lousy govt expat case

This is to report the similar lousy behavior of the Australian govt toward an expat. I had requested an Act of Grace payment since I am located abroad without adequate finance. However the Dept of Fianace and Regvlation straightway denied support. I would like to know if any other group members might have observed a similar experience. It appears that the lazy bastards staffing the dept did not bother with their retarded mentality, to process my request, and merely binned it.

Posted by: steve