Unmarried woman wins pension battle ... sanity at last.

oakiecokie

Well-Known Member
Joined
29 Jan 2010
Messages
44,479
Location
Its Guinness time any day of the week.
A woman who lost her long-term partner has won a legal battle that is likely to improve the pension rights of unmarried couples in the public sector.

Denise Brewster, who was denied payments from her late partner's occupational pension, argued that she was the victim of "serious discrimination".

Following a to and fro legal fight, she won her case at the UK's highest court.

The case was closely watched by pension schemes which could change their rules.

Ms Brewster, a lifeguard from Coleraine, and Lenny McMullan lived together for 10 years and owned their own home.

Prior to the judgement, she said: "I had to make a stand for this and this was about our love and what we were for each other.

"Myself and Lenny both paid into that pension scheme. We paid into that scheme for years and neither I nor anyone belonging to Lenny's family were going to be able to avail of that pension fund that we had paid into the pot."

Mr McMullan died suddenly at Christmas in 2009, aged 43, two days after the couple had got engaged.

At the time of his death he had worked for the Northern Ireland public transport service, Translink, for 15 years, paying into an occupational pension scheme administered by the Northern Ireland Local Government Officers' Superannuation Committee (NILGOSC).

If they had been married Ms Brewster would have automatically shared the pension that he had built up.

Instead, co-habiting partners were only eligible for survivor's allowances in the same way if she had been nominated on a form. However, this form had not been completed, although Ms Brewster thought it had.

Well done to the judicial system which has done something positive.Fucking pension companies trying to escape out of paying up when a bit of common sense could have been used.
 
Fucking pension companies trying to escape out of paying up when a bit of common sense could have been used.

Not 100% true when it's an occupational pension scheme as it relies on current member contributions to keep it topped up. It will mean diluted pension payments for future retirees.

Same as when defined contribution pensions had to treat men and women equally with annuities payments even though statistically women live longer than men. So as with myself, male, my pension pot is subsidising women because they live longer and therefore my pension will be less.
 
Check this out, opposite end of the spectrum

Guy paid his wife £230k lump sum and a £1100 monthly allowance, she made shit investments and lost it all and now the judge rules he has to pay her more! 15 years after they divorced! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...e-payments-wife-lost-bulk-divorce-settlement/

This guy had a £1mil business, so when they divorced he gave her the 600k house and paid her £10k a year. Now 10 years later his business is worth £10mil so shes come back for more adn the judge said yes! She gets £2.7 mil. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4198010/2-7m-settlement-10-YEARS-got-divorced.html
 
Not 100% true when it's an occupational pension scheme as it relies on current member contributions to keep it topped up. It will mean diluted pension payments for future retirees.

Same as when defined contribution pensions had to treat men and women equally with annuities payments even though statistically women live longer than men. So as with myself, male, my pension pot is subsidising women because they live longer and therefore my pension will be less.
So common sense wasn`t used in this instance ? Good luck to all those it affects ... both men and women.By the way I`m a pensioner also and I don`t begrudge this lady a penny.I`ve no idea as to whether she`s in my or other similar pension pots,but good luck to all of those people who may well benefit from this ruling.
 
Sounds fair enough but just wondering if there is any remaining point in getting married or entering into a civil partnership? The only material difference I can think of is intestacy law.
 
Sounds fair enough but just wondering if there is any remaining point in getting married or entering into a civil partnership? The only material difference I can think of is intestacy law.
Just stay away from women and avoid the inevitable state approved theft of your assets so they can have a nice life without earning it. Worse than benefit cheats
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.