Tonight:
5°c
Expat Britons await ruling on pension rights battle
16 Mar 2010More than half a million retired Britons living abroad could be in line for Government payouts if a group fighting a legal battle over pension rights win their case today.
After years of courtroom wrangling, 13 expatriates will learn if they have won their test case for the right to index-linked rises routinely paid to UK-based pensioners but denied to those who have settled abroad.
The decision is being made by judges at the European Court of Human Rights.
Under current rules pensioners who retire abroad only get state pension increases in line with inflation if they live in countries with reciprocal arrangements - the other 26 EU countries, plus the US, Switzerland, Iceland, Norway, Turkey and Liechtenstein.
So-called "up-rating" of the state pension does not apply to those opting to settle in Canada, South Africa, Australia or New Zealand.
The 13 in the test case live in Canada, South Africa and Australia. They include Annette Carson, 78, who emigrated to South Africa in 1989 and whose example was cited in the original legal claims which were rejected in the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords.
A subsequent claim in the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg was also lost, when all but one of the judges ruled that denying the 13 their pension increases did not breach a Human Rights Convention declaration that "the enjoyment of (convention) rights and freedoms shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status".
The 13 argued that the reference to "other status" covered their right to retire to the country of their choice without losing pension rights.
In a hearing in the human rights court last September - effectively the last appeal stage - lawyers argued that pensioners who had made full national insurance contributions throughout their working lives should not have their pensions frozen and denied statutory increase just because of their country of residence.
But Government lawyers said the priority had to be to target money on the poorest pensioners living at home, and that it could not apply increases to those opting to live in countries which have no reciprocal agreements with the UK.
On the eve of the verdict, Ms Carson said it had been a "tooth and nail battle" with the Government for more than eight years.
"It is disgraceful that the British Government has stubbornly refused for so long to recognise the needs of thousands of ageing pensioners who in their youth helped to protect and rebuild Britain, who paid years of compulsory contributions, and who now wish only for their dues.
"Some pensioners have to live on just £6 a week. How the Government thinks that is acceptable I do not know. It's time to make pension parity a reality and reverse this long-standing injustice without delaying any longer."
Tony Bockman, chairman of the International Consortium of British Pensioners, which supported the 13 in their case, said: "Despite the clear injustice of the situation, the Government forced us to pursue our case all the way to the highest possible levels.
"We are optimistic that (the) ruling will finally vindicate our struggle and that the Government will be forced to pay up.
"There are elderly people around the world whose lives will be transformed by a positive ruling and we cannot afford to wait much longer for justice to be seen by many of the most vulnerable and elderly."
Actual pensions for those in the test case vary depending on when they left the UK and their rate of contributions, but in most cases they say they should now be on the basic rate of £82.05 a week - about double the sum received by some.
A ruling in favour of the pensioners could mean significant pension rises for more than 500,000 retired expats whose UK state pension is currently frozen, including 220,000 in Australia and 151,000 in Canada.
Reader views (16)
They should all come home, sign up for benefits and nip to the doctors every day with some minor ailment ... that'll get Brown's lot to change their minds.
- Paul, London, 17/03/2010 11:14
Report abuse
I think you will also find that the yearly " Winter Fuel Payment" will be withdrawn to those who live overseas. If you get it in the UK before you go abroad, it follows you abroad. And its un-taxable. Could save the government Millions of Pounds. More to give new UK arrivals.
- Ann Other, Lake District, 16/03/2010 19:17
Report abuse
Lance
You lose NHS cover after 3 moths...... 10 years would be great
- Light Shaft, Earnley UK, 16/03/2010 17:53
Report abuse
Set th eMP's pensions at the same rate as the ex-pats and then see them rise sky high !...whats good go for the goose is good for the gander as they used to say and thats a saying that needs to be revitilized!
- Clif, London, 16/03/2010 16:46
Report abuse
I should declare an interest as I have dual UK/NZ citizenship. However I have spent most of my working life in the UK, but plan to settle in NZ when my working days are over.
What right does any UK government have to deem that my contributions are less valid because I choose to spend the latter part of my life in more congenial, though not affluent, surroundings?
Perhaps I should become an MP!
- Joh C, Surrey, UK, 16/03/2010 16:20
Report abuse
I have lived in Canada sonce 1973 and keep my UK pension up to date by standing order. I will be 65 in 2013. My limit is frozen not indexed to COL . Those living in the USA and do the same are not penalized and receive the cost of living index. It seems unfair to pay into a fund but received less than the fund pays to others.
- Douglas, Toronto, 16/03/2010 14:37
Report abuse
Its worse than you think, Huggy, of Cumbernauld Scotland. Ex-Forces personnel get no pensions, in my case service of eleven years. A friend did fifteen years as an old sweat and gets nothing. Don't ask me how I feel about MPs' and Council chiefs (Clerks) getting millions. Even the Afghan wounded get a fraction of some female who bent a finger nail in the MoD.
- Fred, Horsham, 16/03/2010 12:02
Report abuse
Dave, London;
You didn't mention that MPs do not have to contribute to their pensions to the same degree that TREAL people, i.e those eho actually work for their living, have to to contribute, as it's paid for by the mug taxpayers who are actually (and remember this, you greedy pigs) the MPs employers.
- P'Doff Pensioner, London/UK, 16/03/2010 11:48
Report abuse
Re: - Lance Johnson, Canterbury, Kent
You should join Nu Lablair. Another English hater.
- Grim Reaper, Hell, 16/03/2010 11:28
Report abuse
If they have paid their contributions all / most of their working lives, then they should enjoy the same rights as resident pensioners. They should not be penalised for wanting to enjoy quality of life in old age away from this overcrowded, ruined country. And they should not be denied what is rightfully theirs when immigrants who have contributed little or nothing to this country get money, houses, etc. as soon as they step foot on these shores.
- Xtremely Worried, Britain (No Longer Great), 16/03/2010 10:47
Report abuse
I hope that the pensioners win this case as it is disgraceful that they receive a lower pension after making the same contributions. In some cases, this includes voluntary NI contributions to make up years while working abroad. With the forthcoming changes, whereby a smaller number of years will be needed for a full contribution record for the state pension, many people, including myself, will discover that they have been making these voluntary contributions unnecessarily.
The state pension arrangements smack of governments making up the rules as they go along - for instance after paying contributions for years you can discover the government has changed the retirement age. We have no contract we can rely on so the only option left is to litigate. Good luck expat pensioners - it's been a very long fight and it will have come too late for some of you.
- Hughie, Surrey, UK, 16/03/2010 10:20
Report abuse
Amazing! -These people have contributed to tax and nat. ins. all their working lives, and the gov't are bending over backwards, and no doubt paying a fortune in legal fees to screw these pensioners out of what should rightly be theirs!
While on the other hand, the gov't seem quite happy to throw money at foreigners, and bums who have never contributed a penny to this country in their lives.
No wonder these folk decided to leave Britain!
- Huggy, Cumbernauld Scotland, 16/03/2010 10:11
Report abuse
If you leave the UK and remain abroad as a resident of a foreign country for 10 years or more all voting rights, free NHS etc should be forfeited. Regards the pension this should also only be increased for the first 10 years after that it should be frozen.
- Lance Johnson, Canterbury, Kent, 16/03/2010 10:09
Report abuse
The U.K. could solve the whole pension 'mess' by simply implementing a citizen pension (as it's called in Australia), where a pension is based on a minimum period of residence in a country rather than on working years. Apart from the U.K., all Western countries base a pension on residence rather than years of work. It would solve, for instance, the problem with non-working wives who have stayed home to look after children. Alan Johnson suggested this about 8 years ago, but Blair/Brown didn't want it. The present British pension system is a total mess, a patchwork that is more expensive to implement than a simplified basic citizen pension system.
- Phil Jones, London EU, 16/03/2010 10:08
Report abuse
They should get the full pension,the goverment is already making huge savings with them not useing the NHS or any other services claimed by those here.It could all be paid for by a 70% reduction on MPs pensions which are far to high.
- Dave, london, 16/03/2010 09:56
Report abuse
Simple, scrap the state pension, give everyone the money back to invest in a pension scheme and this won't happen. Besides this you won't have the enormous juggling that Pa Broon is currently doing to cover the shortfall, mass immigration is not the way to cover any sort of financial shortfall.
- Bob, Cheam, 16/03/2010 09:50
Report abuse
