CBC Pension Scandal

Submitted by Cherfleur

SOCIAL JUSTICE NETWORK & CLINICS
CBC Pension Scandal
In the High Court of Judicature – CV 2550 of 2002

In September 2000 CBC paid out the proceeds from a CBC/ICB Group Non-contributory Pension Policy to a named beneficiary. The 2nd Claimant is the rightful heir to the deceased assets. The named Beneficiary, Dawn Abrams-Grazette (defendant), first told the Claimants and their attorney Dr Haynes Blackman that everything belonged to the 2nd Claimant. Upon instructions by Dr Blackman that his Clients would be taking charge of the Estate, the defendant became acrimonious. She claimed she meant everything in the estate.

Pensions are Trusts and are part of a deceased estate under protection. I started from this trajectory. Thus ensued two decades long search and battle to bring these proceeds back to the rightful beneficiary.

The defendant claimed that since the named beneficiary was her it was hers and was for
her only. You can learn a lot from a dummy!

The 1st Claimant would have none of this. Court proceedings were initiated using the Succession Act. Dr Blackman died, the second Attorney became a judge then Rositta Babb died, Carolyne Herbert died. All these attorneys agreed that the second claimant had priority to the beneficiary as per the Family Law and Succession Act.

Between 2002 and 2015 a dozen attorneys were consulted and all reiterated that once a
named beneficiary is noted that is that.

CBC for their part and as Administrator/Trustees of the Group Life Pension Plan did nothing, like claw back or rescind the payment since they had that authority under a non-contributory Pension Plan. It was the CBC’s Plan not the insured/deceased. Instead the then General Manager hid behind a veil claiming the CBC carried out the deceased wishes. Not forgetting it is a non-contributory pension plan. The GM is now Chairman.

Between 2015 and 2018 the claimants retained a new attorney and was told that they had to prove that it was intended for the minor by way of the specifics of the plan. The attorney tried to get information from the CBC regarding the terms of the Plan. Though information about the kind of Plan and when it was effected was provided CBC refused to give any information regarding the operation of the said plan and who intrinsically is entitled to claimor benefit from it.

At a deadlock the 1st Claimant suggested that if the attorney could not by authority get CBC to hand over the information she would take over the case and so the attorney pulled out. This signalled apparent blood dripping and the defendant’s attorney jumped at the opportunity to strike out on the grounds of an abuse of process but the 1st Claimant argued differently. The matter was adjourned to March 2019 for submissions from both parties. The 1st claimant took charge and reread all the information received for CBC and ICB’s Members’ Handbook and proceeded. Listed in the information was the fact that the policy was effected in 1996 (the year before the new Insurance Law which states a named beneficiary is final)

A visit to ICB met with more stalling because the Letters of Administration had expired. They too refused to cooperate. However the Members’ handbook had clearly stated that benefits were for dependants only. It also stated that the Master Plan for this Policy was lodged with the Inland Revenue Department (IRD) which was originally the statutory body handling Pensions and Insurance.

Submissions were filed within the deadlines but the matter (because the claimants were
self represented) were being adjourned and adjourned until red-phone calls began to fly.
During all that time the Claimant visited four locations of the IRS now BRA only to be told
Pensions and Insurances are being handled by the Financial Services Commission (FSC).

In October 27 2019 the parties met before court for pleadings. The Judge was unwilling to
hear from the ‘unrepresented’ party. However pleadings proceeded and the matter was adjourned to January 27 for a Decision and Claimants to seek counsel. There was no need
for counsel since all submissions were already filed. The adjournments were working in the Claimants’ favour.

A visit to FSC and discussions and explorations revealed that the two instruments are very different. In the words of the Officer: Pension is not Insurance. Dumbfounded the Claimant asked to clarify that statement and was told each has its own legislation. Armed with this new information the Claimant filed further submissions to include this detail as well as new independent submissions for the second claimant reinforcing the right to maintenance and priority…

On January 27 there was no decision forthcoming. New pleadings erupted about the further submissions and the erroneous defence of using the Insurance Act to defend a Pension Plan.

The matter was again adjourned to April 1st for decision. There was a national lockdown
from March so nothing came of that, although some sectors were functioning virtually,
including the Judiciary. The courts resumed operations since May 18th but no decision yet forthcoming.

From May to now is four months where decisions are due within three months.
From January 27 to now is eight months.
Barbados is a twilight Zone.

Even the Judiciary where justice is sought is of questionable behaviour. Its rank of incompetence and other odiousness. It is no wonder the cases are backed up. Judges playing the A********* all the time. Clogging up the system with cases that need only be heard once and discharged but rather adjourning and adjourning and
adjourning. Its a scam.

As long as it takes, a decision one way or another has to be made. It cannot be made in favour of a defence on the Insurance Act.

  1. The 2nd Claimant has priority as per the Succession Act
  2. The Pensions Act and ICB Handbook and Master Plan dictates benefits for
    dependants only. The 2nd Claimant is the sole issue and dependent of the deceased.
    Me, just me and my statistician and secretarial skills was able to unravel a rather
    straightforward case in effect. No mystery no intrigue. Just common sense.
    Twenty RH years. Paying attorneys that were spewing more RH. I could have decided to defend this case since 2002 and be over and done with it. But nothing happens before its
    time.

The claim before the courts is for:

  1. Return of the Policy proceeds and interest and multiplier (% devaluation of each $1)
  2. Damages for duress and opportunity cost
  3. Devastavit of estate
  4. Disgorgement (seizure of all gains made from the proceeds).

I do not know how attorneys are learning or how they are serving clients but they are just not impactful and or knowledgeable in uncommon areas of the law.  One attorney, number 13, with a PhD was adamant that I didn’t stand a chance because there is a named beneficiary. None of them noticed (or perhaps they were representing the defendant or protecting CBC), that the particular policy went into effect before the amendment to the Insurance Act (1997).

My advice to employees of CBC is that they check and update their beneficiaries to their Pension Plan regularly to ensure that who they want to have it gets it. Do not depend on the Administrators of the Plan. It is either they do not know or understand their responsibility or the operation of the Plan or it was a grave duck up.

Secondly, mothers who have children with workers at CBC and are eligible for Pensions (10years service) should ensure that the beneficiary form is completed properly and where necessary an added notation (on the Form) expressing who the proceeds are for where there is a named beneficiary other than the children.

All is well that ends well.

202 comments

  • “The 1st Claimant would have none of this. Court proceedings were initiated using the Succession Act. Dr Blackman died, the second Attorney became a judge then Rositta Babb died, Carolyne Herbert died. All these attorneys agreed that the second claimant had priority to the beneficiary as per the Family Law and Succession Act.”
    😂🤣😁

    the supreme court is a dangerous joke, as for the lawyers and those charged with handing down judgements, they die off just like everyone else, but with the little taxpayer funded shite jobs they get once politically appointed, they don’t act like it….a total shame and disgrace..

    one minute you hear decisions are to be handed down in a 3 month window, next time you hear it’s 6 months….they rarely get handed down in either time frame and that is what must be exposed for the whole world to see…it’s all a violation of people’s civil rights.

    Like

  • This is not funny at all. Gross incompetence.

    Like

  • Even the Judiciary where justice is sought is of questionable behaviour. Its rank of incompetence and other odiousness. It is no wonder the cases are backed up. Judges playing the A********* all the time. Clogging up the system with cases that need only be heard once and discharged but rather adjourning and adjourning and
    adjourning. Its a scam.

    @ Hal

    I HAVE EXPERIENCED THIS IN A CIVIL MANNER.

    BARBADOS IS ROTTEN TO THE CORE

    Like

  • @ Baje

    I have mentioned this before, but will again. Some time ago a senior lawyer at Slaughter and May, one of the top law firms in the UK, and considered at the time the top pensions lawyer in Britain, regularly visited Barbados.
    I went to interview him and, as you do, we got talking. When I told him I came from Barbados, he then told me of his annual holiday. I then asked if he would be interested in talking to a group of lawyers about pensions and he agreed. I then called a well-known QC and suggested the meeting to him.
    He was not keen. More interested in telling me that local lawyers were just as good as their UK counterparts. I then said the idea was to make contacts. To cut a long story short, it never came off.
    ,

    Like

  • So should pension payments go to an elderly estranged spouse, to a minor child, to an adult son or daughter, or to all?

    These are the questions, and actually they are not very hard questions.

    And actually going forward no non-contributory pensions entirely funded by the taxpayer. Withhold some money for the employees to fund their own pensions.

    Like

  • Fix it.
    Overhaul the judicial system.

    Like

  • The main problem is the occupational pensions system. We need a new system, but instead of sorting out this awful crisis the president is off again on the world stage performing more optics. She is now too big for Barbados.
    It will end in tears.
    BTW, what is a legal definition of an occupational pension? Answer to our judges and politicians.

    Like

  • It’s the players rotten to their core, there is nothing wrong with the island itself

    the lawyers, judges and all of those who are supposed to administer justice, too much political interference in everything from classless government ministers, if they don’t like you, you get a special kind of hellish treatment and never get anything completed as long as you don’t display the mental qualities of a slave to keep the rotten system going, you become their target….. , too many of them are downright nasty and unprofessional…this has been happening for decades, they are now more brazen than ever and ignoring the exposure…but they will all continue to be exposed as long as they are determined to violate Black people’s human rights.

    The ones that you actually find willing to do their jobs in the judiciary are less in number than the lowlifes and they too always have to watch their backs with them….both governments have enabled and condoned this, just as they did the corruption from the minority trash calling themselves social partnership or bizzy would not still have the nerve and be able to show his ugly, dried up spotted face and still talking a bunch of stupid shit in the media as though anyone is impressed by him, outside of BUs government owned slaves…

    it’s your black face sell out governments are the ones deliberately keeping the island in that horribly degraded societal condition.

    Like

  • Pension?
    The New Retirement Normal “Employee Contributions” 401k or equivalent plans. If the company fails, you funds are safe with the broker house. Not a CLICO.

    Like

  • Who is Judging the Judges?

    http://judicialconduct.judiciary.gov.uk/

    We will get back to you after COVID-19

    Thank you

    Like

  • We have heard over and over during the years that people have complained for lawyers who believe they should make more money off the case’s progress than the claimant, therefore your case will never be completed, even 20 years later when they all look obese, bloated and about to go to their graves too….after sucking on whomever is paying..

    …. you hear the same about some judges, as the claimant and someone entitled to your compensation after settlement or decision, none of them want you to get what is rightfully yours, with their dirty, corrupt, corroded minds….this is nothing new.. people seeking justice cannot get any matter completed and resolved in that cursed situation at the court….as Barrow SAID…

    the first thing they do is calculate how much you are supposed to receive, then they determine that it’s too much money for you, that is despite the amount being your LOSS OF EARNINGS …in cases of personal injury….it’s RIGHTFULLY YOUR MONEY that you would have earned anyway, had you not been injured….but the wicked minded lawyers and judges will tell you straight up, that is too much money for you and hinting that you will get rich, the assholes…..not even articulating that after 10 or twenty years of waiting for a case to be completed, you will have a mountain of debt and will end up with very little, if anything, from their gross destructive wickedness of dragging the cases through the system indefinitely.

    it’s that evil mindset where negros hate seeing each other with anything, even when there is no need to..

    so it’s no surprise that an uncomplicated case like paying to the beneficiaries in an estate is still ongoing two decades later…

    Like

  • We have a systemic issue with managing pension funds in Barbados and the region. We have burgeoning MP pensions, some public sector workers receiving two pensions and not to forget LIAT pilots whose pension fund was grossly mismanaged.

    Like

  • A lot of these piece of shit lawyers who work for insurance companies believe they have some given right to do as they like …but let them carry on smartly….this is 2020.

    Like

  • @ BAJE
    “Judiciary where justice is sought is of questionable behavior”.

    Mr. Deighton Kingsley Rawlings should be appointed as Chief Judge. Our Judiciary system would be second to none in the Caribbean. He is impartial and would lead by examples. He is also a member of Middle Temple in London, England. Deighton was admitted to the bar in 1967 ??????

    Like

  • The systematic issue affecting the judiciary is not about impartial decisions. The business model (to borrow the term) is affected by lack of resources especially as it relates to ancillary services.

    Like

  • The systematic issue affecting the judiciary is not about impartial decisions. The business model (to borrow the term) is affected by lack of resources especially as it relates to ancillary services….(Quote)

    What is this crap? What business model? If he does not know what he is talking about he should keep quiet.

    Like

  • @ David,

    Ancillary services ? Did you mean computers,scheduling software,a digital law library etc ?

    Like

  • @Hants

    +judges assistants +researcher etc

    There was a back page story a few weeks ago where the judge commented on the hindrances when she handed down a 15 year decision in the Kingsland Estates matter.

    Like

  • @Hants

    Bear in mind a big part of the dysfunction is a heavy backlog.

    Like

  • Is that the same backlog that Thompson changed the constitution to include Gibson to reduce over 9 years ago and it’s even worse now than before because nothing changed. The lawyers are still as vicious as ever pushing cases into adjournment after adjournment and maliciously creating delays to benefit the insurance company in avoiding paying claims., the judges are still not forceful or they would lock up such lawyers for contempt and for disrespecting their courtrooms..

    There is an instance where an insurance company lawyer absolutely refused for a whole year to file written submissions as directed by the judge and decided to file after the 6 month period that the judge was duty bound to hand down a decision…..all of them are to blame for their lackadaisical attitude to how these matters are litigated….and the total waste of everyone’s time…

    Like

  • Critical Analyzer

    Once a beneficiary is named on any policy, that is it unless they have evidence of some type of fraud or criminal activity. All lawyers should have said so, charged the claimant for their advice and refused to file the case.

    What is really needed is a law forcing the lawyers filing these type of stupid cases to pay the court, defendant and defendant’s lawyer costs out of the lawyer’s own pocket for wasting everybody’s time.

    Like

  • Some are still missing the point, unscrupulous lawyers see civil cases as cash cows to milk until everyone dies including themselves and if perchance the lawyer dies first, some lowlife in the bar association will take over and it’s wash, rinse and repeat…it’s a cycle of greed first and foremost that has reduced the supreme court to a worldwide laughing stock and everyone has something to say about all of them.. and some very sordid grievances to relay…..it’s so bad that their victims are organizing themselves, because something has to be done, it cannot be allowed to go into a new and fresh generations of victims with the same ugly style and system.

    Like

  • “All lawyers should have said so, charged the claimant for their advice and refused to file the case.”

    cash cow.

    Like

  • Critical Analyzer

    @WURA-War-on-U August 13, 2020 7:40 PM

    “cash cow.”

    The law system should make it a cash cow for the parties involved with all the money coming ONLY from the plaintiff’s lawyer pocket.

    I wish I had been the named beneficiary cause the plaintiff would not even have known I got the cheque and anybody in the know that talked, I would have had a case for breach of confidentiality.

    Like

  • When i read these stories, they make me feel I should have become a lawyer in Barbados.
    I wudda tek up everything.

    Looking for the island you would not be able to find it unless you look in my pocket.

    Was living a life without regrets, until I realized how much I could have stolen.

    Like

  • “The law system should make it a cash cow for the parties involved with all the money coming ONLY from the plaintiff’s lawyer pocket.”

    they will never do that as long as it’s all going into their own pockets….it’s a full utilization of the corrupt colonial system, remember they did not create it, but they know how to navigate and circumvent it…

    Theo…trust me, you do not want the label these have…and they will be more famous than they ever hoped to be by this time next year…there is no turning back for any them or they would have already made the requisite changes…and as everyone can see, they won’t even if they could…they built their own highway to destruction, it’s a freeway..

    Like

  • @ Hal
    Once again, not tears my Brother. Learn to laugh. Sixty years of Independence and all we get is fowl up after fowl up. Errol Barrow once said , if you want justice stay away from the law courts.
    Not tears ….learn to laugh.
    What fascinates me is the fact that we have been able to get so many things right and then we kind of balance it by getting so many things wrong.
    All the third parties and civic groups should get together and just focus on kicking the BLPDLP into political oblivion. That my Comrade is the only solution. Unfortunately that solution is not on the horizon.
    I listened attentively to the top economists paying tribute to Arthur today (VOB) and they concluded that many of his policies were unsuccessful or did not bear the fruit he expected because the private sector failed or bluntly refused to step up.
    Let’s look at it seriously: Two basically useless political parties that have lived out their usefulness; a lazy indifferent spoilt private sector ; a snail like judiciary; crumbling infrastructure and an economy that even before COVID had made three trips to be bailed out by the IMF. What really is this a recipe for?
    In the midst of all this bold stupidity , we have: an undemanding people; an exceptional level of creativity in our youth ; a rather docile trade union movement; a competent civil service and generally a country that should have been a beacon model for small developing countries. We Barbadians are A+ students who have decided to settle for a B- . And that’s our problem. We are embracing mediocrity and the weight is slowing drowning us all.
    I really hope the coming Throne Speech will be uplifting and that PM Mottley will realise she has the opportunity to lift the nation up- a kind of new beginning grounded in reality . Anything else will be a waste of time.
    Peace.

    Like

  • There is some erroneous information contained herein of this article. CBC is or was part of the SCPP. There is a death in service benefit payable to a wife and dependant children after vesting , there is a group life plan ,which is separate and distinct . CBC is not the administrator ICB is , trustees appointed by CBC would assist with oversight based on the trust deed and rules of the plan. Benefits are payable to a designated beneficiary ,from recollection in Barbados your spouse is your beneficiary unless he or she waives this right in writing before your death. You are correct Pensions is not insurance. This is a matter that the Supervisor of Pensions can and should adjudicate, there should be a competent resource within the Commission to do such.

    Like

  • When i read these stories, they make me feel I should have become a lawyer in Barbados.
    I wudda tek up everything.

    Looking for the island you would not be able to find it unless you look in my pocket.

    Was living a life without regrets, until I realized how much I could have stolen.

    Xxxxxxxx

    BARBADOS LAND OF TOTAL HONESTY AND TRANSPARENCY.

    BANANA REPUBLIC

    Like

  • @TonyAugust 13, 2020 2:43 PM “Pension? The New Retirement Normal “Employee Contributions” 401k or equivalent plans. If the company fails, you funds are safe with the broker house.”

    What if the broker house fails?

    What if the broker house carry away the employee contributions?

    Like

  • So what if I as a young woman gives birth to a child with an elderly man? What if he even leaves his equally elderly wife and comes to live with me? But alas for me he never divorces his wife, and alas again because he is old, old he dies while our child is still very young.

    What should his pension plan do?

    Pay the pension to the long time wife, though of recent years deserted, but still the LEGAL WIDOW? And who has been named in writing as beneficiary?

    Or to the mother of the young child in trust for the infant?

    Like

  • Critical Analyzer

    @ curley16 August 13, 2020 8:51 PM
    Your recollection, like most bajans, is ill-informed and dead wrong. That is why the lawyers robbing we bajans blind cause we refuse to get financially literate and go by hearsay and sound fair.

    1) A pension plan is insurance.
    2) The succession law only applies if the beneficiary is the estate as it will go into the asset pool. When a person(s) are specifically named as a beneficiary, it DOES NOT go into the asset pool. There is no waiving of rights. The beneficiary would have to decide to give away the money after they receive the cheque. i.e. If I decide to name my outside woman as the beneficiary on my pension or insurance policy, my wife and children can’t get a cent unless my outside woman give them.

    Hopefully that explanation will prevent the misinformed comments.

    Like

  • Of course our courts are clogged up partly of nuisance cases. Litigants who bring frivolous to court, and then won’t give up. I think that people watch too much foreign TV.

    Like

  • @ TheOGazerts August 13, 2020 8:22pm
    Man you are the ultimate/best.

    Like

  • curley16August 13, 2020 8:51 PM

    “You are correct Pensions is not insurance.”

    curley,
    Some people clearly see the risk associated with the relatively early and untimely death of a breadwinner. The consequences of such an unexpected death are loss of income and potential poverty for the family unit.

    Life insurance is the mechanism used to offer an individual financial protection against the risk of living a life that turns out to be too short. The financial protection comes mainly in the form of a lump sum death benefit.

    Some people clearly see the risk associated with a retiree living year after year, after year…. The consequences of such longevity are using up all available savings and assets, and a potential plunge into poverty for the individual in his or her “golden” years.

    The provision of a pension is the mechanism used to offer an individual financial protection against the risk of living a life that turns out to be too long. The financial protection comes mainly in the form of an annuity.

    The annuity and the lump sum death benefit are related, mathematically.

    In a nutshell, this is the reasoning that would lead me to disagree with you and argue that “pensions” are indeed insurance.

    Like

  • I remember this being a years long and often talked about project of the former Chief Justice, but that’s all it is, still long talk. This is a result of two corrupt governments and multiple court officers reducing the society, the black majority to second class citizens unable to resolve simple issues because they have never had any experiences of justice coming out of the supreme court that they as taxpayers fund and keep in existence….this is the handiwork of t black leaders’ wickedness….they have helped an already rotten system, designed to stay in that state and they themselves further developed it to demean and degrade their people for so long that it will take many years, decades evern. before the society ever reaches a recovery stage….this is what happens when you deny your own people due process and justice for all of their lives…Barbados’ former and current leaders should be severely punished for these social crimes, people have been crying out for longer than many of us have been alive against the bigotry and inequality at the Supreme Court.

    “Thanking the Canadian government for its support in this and other projects over the years, Howard said it was one deemed to be extremely important to Barbados.

    She said there was a noticeable increase in tension among individuals in recent times and she believed mediation would play a critical role in helping to solve those frictions…

    “One of the things that comes out when engaging the young people is the number of cases of poor self-esteem, poor self-confidence, the conflicts and tensions which exist both within homes and within their environments within their communities and other communities,” said Howard”

    Like

  • Walter Blackman August 14,2020 1:17 AM
    “Pensions” are indeed insurance.

    I stand corrected on both fronts.

    Like

  • @Curley 16
    Pensions are delayed wages. They are not social security or generosity from the employer. Most pensions (defined benefits and group personal pensions) are protected through the vehicle of an annuity. Defined contribution pensions depend on the vagaries of the equity markets.
    (With a defined benefit pension the employer/scheme sponsor takes the risk; with a defined contribution pension, the member takes the risk)
    With an annuity, the annuitant usually makes a lump sum investment and the insurance company’s actuarial contract will include an age of longevity – and that is the gamble.
    If the annuitant dies the day after taking out the annuity, or at anytime before the actuarial age, then all the invested money goes to the insurance company, and not to the annuitant’s estate.
    However, if the annuitant lives beyond the expected age, then the company is still obligated to honour the contract by paying the agreed ‘pension’ (income).
    A group personal pension is just a collection of personal pensions grouped under one umbrella and which share benefits and management as if they were a single occupational scheme.
    As to a pension being a trust. Yes and no. Some pensions are written under contract law, which means if the insured dies, the pay out must go through probate; if the pension is written under trust law, then it can be paid out as soon as the trustees do the paper work.
    By the way, the beneficiary of a life insurance policy is the dead person’s estate. A dead man or woman cannot be a beneficiary. They are dead. The only exception to this is that some insurance companies pay out before death if the insured person is likely to die from a disease, which must be medically confirmed. Aids sufferers used to draw on their life policies, but with advances in medical science HIV/Aids is no longer a death sentence. The idea is that you can enjoy life before you die, rather than your heirs having all the fun.
    Finally, anyone who thinks Leroy |Harewood was a great man must have wisdom.

    Like

  • Bajans really need to invest in basic financial literacy.

    Like

  • @Dullard

    It should be taught in schools and should be part of our everyday news reporting.

    Like

  • Critical Analyzer

    @Hal Austin
    I’m not familiar with pensions plans being written either under the contract or trust law, so I can’t comment on that but your statement “By the way, the beneficiary of a life insurance policy is the dead person’s estate.” needs correcting.

    The beneficiary of the policy can either be the dead person’s estate or be one or more named persons. If the beneficiary is the estate, the policy goes along with the probate. But if the policy has one or more named persons, the policy is not included in the probate process and the insurance company disburses the funds to the named beneficiaries.

    Few bajans realise it is best to name the beneficiaries on your insurance policies and completely avoid that lengthy probate process (blame the court system for this) and the associated lawyer fees when you choose estate.

    Like

  • Critical Analyzer

    A compulsory primary and secondary school class covering the basics of budgeting, investment instruments, debt reduction strategies, financial and estate planning is sorely needed.

    We used to be able to manage to a certain extent in yesteryear but with the prevalence of mortgages and credit cards, many financial landmines have been added to our fields and hills to keep us from accumulating true wealth.

    Liked by 1 person

  • You are so right. Landmines all over the place. It should be taught in secondary school. Some of it is covered in the Maths syllabus but just calculations not counselling.

    Like

  • Can the named beneficiary be a minor child though? I don’t think so. I named my mother as beneficiary until my son turns eighteen. I can trust her to do the right thing.

    What would the process be if one hsd nobody whom one could trust?

    Like

  • @Donna

    If a minor is named there will always be a trustee to manage the administration/disbursement.

    Like

  • Critical Analyzer

    @Donna
    You can name a minor but it gets tricky because I think a special law kicks in until they are 18. You would have to discuss with someone versed in insurance that knows the limitations.

    You can change the beneficiaries whenever you want and you don’t even have to tell them anything. You can even name multiple people and state how you want the percentages split. I did that with mine.

    “What would the process be if one hsd nobody whom one could trust?”
    You could leave it at estate and let your will will and succession act do it’s thing. You still have the option to change it if you find someone later.

    What I personally did was to name the persons that will end up with the money in the end if I had put it in my will so they would get the money immediately and not have to wait on the will probate process and loose money through fees to the lawyers from the probate process.

    Like

  • CA

    I was trying to make the money available immediately and without fees.

    The will can take care of everything else.

    David,

    Trustees sounded grander than the amount suggested, I thought at the time. It ain’t no million dollar policy.

    Thankfully my son is now seventeen and my mother is still in possesion of her financial senses. He is actually financially literate. I taught him the basics and he knows about the policy and my other assets. He is also quite frugal. Eleven more months and I can change the beneficiary.

    Like

  • Critical Analyzer

    @Donna
    Good for you. Once he has the basics, he can go from there. The kids now are so fortunate to have access to so much research material via internet and Amazon Kindle books.

    I got the old bajan way of financials from my parents. Dad’s idea of financial planning was save with the credit union and borrow against that whereas mum hated paying interest so she saved and waited to buy cash or paid off early to get cash price.

    I ended up combining the two where I avoid taking on new debt as much as possible and split any excess money at the end of the month between paying down debt, saving and splurging.

    Like

  • Donna the money is lodged with the registrar of the Supreme Court and held in trust until the age of 18.

    Like

  • If somebody don’t tief it, that is always the excuse not to hand over beneficiaries money and then the money is never paid out. Anything lodged at the court, from speaking to victims, is targeted for theft or forgery. The first stop in prevention is policing the thieves in the Supreme Court, naming and shaming them all, it’s the only deterrent.

    I remember that happened to scummy attorney Caroline Herbert deceased, when she tried to retrieve a forged will from the registry after the probate was stopped during the attempted theft of a multi-million dollar estate in Mount Standfast, St. James belonging to an elderly lady shortly after she had died. Herbert was caught and exposed, what others did not know at the time is that they were all involved in that theft…..from the fraud sitting as CJ at that time in 2006 coming all down to the fraud sitting as head at the bar association at that time….it will be a battle to end that level of corruption, it’s a very well organized criminal syndicate of unfeeling savages who go out of their way to commit these crimes against vulnerable people..

    Like

  • @Cherfluer,

    if you are the person who represented herself, i congratulate you. that was just brilliant. the devil is always in the details. what you did would normally have been done by a solicitor who are v dogged, and then passed onto a barrister for court purposes or nowadays, even a solicitor can take such cases as these to court. in Bim, some lawyers dont like research, and dont like to hire and train good paralegals for this type of work.

    that was v good research and follow through

    Like

  • @Hal

    well explained except for the part about the beneficiaries of a life ins. , which is a bit vague. most ins firms ask you to name a beneficiary via a form provided. unless that beneficiary dies before you, or you rename the beneficiary as your estate via the said form, anything you write in your will with respect to some other person receiving your life ins is null and void.

    in other words if there is a conflict between the beneficiary you named on the life ins form and who you named in your will for the same life ins, the former will succeed.

    Like

  • @ Greene

    I did not want to go in to any long explanation and drift in to discussing inheritance legislation, given there is no such legislation in Barbados.
    We were talking about occupational pensions. Embedded in an occupational pension is life insurance cover. Quite often the beneficiary does not even realise there is life cover. I was not talking about life cover taken out by an individual person.
    The insurance I was talking about covers death in service and is paid for by the scheme sponsor. Death in service benefit is usually about three to four times annual salary/wages and is covered, in the UK, under the 1925 Trust Act as amended.
    It is intended to help the surviving partner to pay the bills, including the mortgage, in the short term, and they will also receive an enhanced partner’s pension. The children, if any, will also receive a small annual income.
    (I am not digressing, but I long campaigned for the life cover in occupational pensions to be passed on to the departing worker on leaving his or her employment. This is one for trade unions).
    In death in service cases the trustees will always pay out to the estate (widow or widower), except in very, very exceptional cases, and then such cases usually end up at the pensions ombudsman. It is not automatic.
    Even if the insured person recommends a beneficiary, the trustees are not obliged to pay that person anything. They can, and do, refuse.
    However, they will usually pay the benefit to the partner, if married, or the named person, if unmarried. Since the married partner has a legal right to the estate. Unlike the CCJ, neither the ombudsman, nor the higher courts, recognise the concept of common law marriages under inheritance legislation..

    Like

  • Curley,

    Rather trust my mother than any system. We know how that goes in these parts. Besides, I wanted the money to support my son immediately. I like to take care of my own responsibilties even when dead.

    Like

  • Much respect Hal! Thorough overview of death in service benefit rider with group life attachment.

    Like

  • @ Curley 16

    No problem. One of Leroy’s qualifications was a diploma in industrial relations and trade union studies (DIRTUS). He was very keen on workers’ rights.

    Like

  • @Hal,

    no problem. seems to be one of your areas of expertise

    Like

  • Ever so often it is wise that plan participants, whether DB or DC plans should complete a Nomination of Beneficiary Form with named beneficiaries per capita if in equal share or generational purpose in stripes to avoid such happenings. This is relevant to any life policy Term,Whole,UL and Variables.

    Hal again I am astounded by your depth of knowledge of Pensions and regulations attached thereto,your piece on life annuities is true for which most planners on island should know they have a fiduciary responsibility to explaining when funds are being transferred.

    Like

  • @ Curley 16

    Thanks. The principle is ALWAYS make a will. I know some people do not like wills because it suggests death. In every society there is nearly always family rows after a death (or marriage). This is a role for the bar association.
    You do not have to do as I do, but I have even planned my funeral, down to the hymns (only two non-hymn songs), and the readings from the Bible. One short speech from a family member. No fishcakes and rum after-party.
    Retirement planning should always include your funeral. I am surprised that undertakers in Barbados do not offer funeral plans. One for BARP.

    Like

  • NorthernObserver

    @HA
    What is it called, when like public employees in Barbados, your pension is paid from the “consolidated fund” based upon your final years earnings and there is no fund per se and no contributions. Other than a gigantic liability.

    Like

  • @ Northern

    A rip off. In Barbados there is also the trick of promoting an approaching retiree to the level above his/her normal grade. Pensions are then calculated on the temporary new pay grade. Where I live we call that fraud. Just look at MPs’ pensions.
    I have called for a pension based on whole of life earning average; and, government debt should be calculated on whole of government accounts. Governments have huge liabilities that are not on the books.

    Like

  • @ Donna

    I also agree “basic budgeting, investment instruments, debt reduction strategies, financial and estate planning” should not be only taught in secondary schools, the fundamentals should be a part of the CXC syllabus and advance theory at CAPE level as well.

    I often encourage youngsters to join a credit union, get a medical plan, invest in an insurance policy, since the monthly rates are usually reasonable when you’re young and you could progressively increase the coverage as you become older…… and, at some point in their lives, they should plan for retirement.

    However, I’ve known several people who lived their working lives as though they were retired, while accumulating debt in the process. And, after retirement age, when they should be relaxing, they have to continue working to settle that debt.

    During retirement, for example, there would obviously be changes in some people’s lifestyles, (especially those individuals who did not adequately prepare for retirement), as a result of a significant reduction in income, caused by the disparity between wages and pension.

    Retirement planning, counselling, managing finances, etc, should be a mandatory national initiative that could be organized by the workplace, BARP or NAB.

    Like

  • Is this why we got two Deputy COP? The newest on the verge of retirement.
    Your points are well noted.

    Like

  • @ Northern

    You are so clever. Just ask when are they (or either) going to retire? It is an old Bajan trick – and they get away with it all the time. Als have a look at those who go on six-month leave before final retirement.
    The Barbadian professional and middle classes operate every day like a Mafia. The poor victims are the poorly educated boys and girls on the block. In a world of the blind, the one-eyed person is king/queen.

    Like

  • Hal Austin August 14, 2020 9:01 AM

    “With an annuity, the annuitant usually makes a lump sum investment and the insurance company’s actuarial contract will include an age of longevity – and that is the gamble.
    If the annuitant dies the day after taking out the annuity, or at anytime before the actuarial age, then all the invested money goes to the insurance company, and not to the annuitant’s estate.
    However, if the annuitant lives beyond the expected age, then the company is still obligated to honour the contract by paying the agreed ‘pension’ (income).”

    Hal,
    I am struggling to understand what you are trying to say. We are dealing with a highly technical and esoteric subject here, so I will do my best to get over some basic ideas in a simplified manner.

    You are correct in stating that an individual can purchase an annuity through a contract with an insurance company.
    However most defined benefit pensions are delivered via the mechanism of employer-sponsored “qualified” pension plans.

    The private-sector employer and the employee (rarely in the USA) make contributions, as directed by the actuary, throughout the working life of the employee. By the time the employee is ready to retire, there is supposed to be an adequate amount of money available in the trust fund to pay his/her pension benefits every month. There is no need to purchase an annuity contract from an insurance company. The monthly pensions are paid directly from the trust fund.

    Public sector pension plans generally tell a different story. It is a story of woe. Politicians talk the talk, but when it comes to making sure that adequate funds are available to pay civil service pensions, they do not walk the walk. In the coming years, as government revenue falls further and further behind government expenditure, retired Barbadian civil servants will begin to weep and gnash their teeth. Hopefully then, they will fully understand what I am saying now.

    All annuity contracts, whether issued by an insurance company or a qualified pension plan, spell out the different forms of pension that the annuitant can choose from.

    For example, a single annuitant, retiring at age 65 with a monthly pension of $1000, might receive a form asking him/her to select ONE of the following options:

    Single life annuity of $1000 per month – The annuitant will receive $1000 per month until the date of death. As you said, “If the annuitant dies the day after taking out the annuity”, or after retiring, all payments cease.

    10-year certain and continuous annuity of $911 per month – Payment is guaranteed to be made for at least 10 years. If the annuitant were to die after 2 years, for example, his estate or beneficiary will receive the monthly pension for another 8 years. If the annuitant survives the 10-year period, payments will continue until the annuitant’s death.
    There are also 5, 15, and 20-year certain and continuous annuity options available in some plans.

    If an annuitant is married, the normal form of pension is a 50% (60% in Barbados) Joint and survivor annuity. Under this form, the annuitant would receive $883 per month until death. As long as the annuitant is alive, the spouse would receive nothing. If the spouse dies before the annuitant, the annuitant will continue to receive $883 per month until death. If the annuitant dies before the spouse, the spouse would receive $441.50 until death.
    There are also 25%, 66 2/3%, 75%, and 100% Joint and survivor annuity options available in some plans.

    If a married annuitant does not want this form of benefit, his/her spouse would have to sign a notarized waiver giving up the spousal rights to the benefit.

    The “best” form of pension to select is shaped by individual circumstances. For example, the interests of a married annuitant, suffering from a terminal illness at retirement, might be best served by selecting a 100% Joint and survivor benefit.
    Alas, many retiring participants of pension plans make this critical decision with no knowledge, and without seeking advice.

    Like

  • @ Walter

    This is a long response, but I will deal with it point by point. Most occupational pensions, as you point out, are provided by the employer. That is why they are called occupational pensions.
    All ‘qualified’ means is that the scheme is approved by the tax man. It will be highly irresponsible of an employer to offer a pension scheme that is not approved by the tax man. First, they open themselves to heavy charges, and in the UK it will be a criminal offence.
    Most members of schemes make contributions to their pensions, and the employers also make contributions. However, 25 per cent of any pension pot is tax free, ie the tax man also makes a contribution.
    For for example, if you have a pension pot of £4000000, you can take £100000 tax free, and get a pension based on the remaining £300000.
    An annuity is a contract, so you get what you pay for. For example, 20 years ago if someone took out a £100000 annuity they would get an income of about £10000. If they did the same today, they will be lucky to get £3500. The income depends on the rate of inflation.
    Another good example is a professional sportsman or woman. If a boxer took out an annuity, it is normal that s/he would be able to claim at age 40, for the simple reason that a boxer cannot be expected to work to age 65.
    All the numbers about annuities in Barbados are irrelevant. I do not know anything about the incomes and have no intention of buying any.
    An impaired annuity, however, can also give good returns since actuaries always assume that is someone smokes, drinks too much, does not exercise and is over weight s/he will die before someone with a much better lifestyle.
    But the average scheme retirement age in the UK is 62, while the state retirement age is 65/66 going up to 67. It is not unusual for people to take retirement and go on working.
    Or even for people to take early retirement (as with local authority workers at the turn of the century) then continue working as freelance teachers. In fact, early retirement is a good deal since it means the retiree gets a pension based on the full scheme retirement age.
    Further, in the UK, with the Age Discrimination Act, a person does not have to retire at the scheme or the state retirement ages and may continue working and contributing to their work-place pension.
    As to workplace annuities. With a defined contribution scheme, the workers agrees his/her investment plan and the size of the pension pot depends on the returns on those investment. With a defined benefit scheme, the sponsor is responsible. Some sponsors take out an annuity for individual workers as they reach retirement, while others are happy paying pensions out of investments and contributions from active members. That is highly risky.
    Some retirees also like to take their pension pots out. To do that they must get an actuarial valuation (you and your colleagues) and take the money out. That too is highly risky and the most popular vehicle for that is a SIPP (Self-invested personal pension). Trouble with that is when it is gone, it is gone.
    Most occupational pensions in the UK pay 40/60, or two-thirds of final salary (pro-rate on years worked). There is no best occupational pension to select. You take what the employer is offering.
    However, if you are buying a private pension, then you get what you pay for. Don’t mix up state pensions, occupational pensions and private pensions.
    You are right about seeking professional advice, preferably from an independent financial adviser/planner. Certainly not from lawyers or book keepers.
    It is nice discussing pensions policy with a pensions actuary.

    Like

  • It would be nicer to discuss pension matters in a Barbados context.

    Like

  • Hal Austin August 15, 2020 3:00 PM

    “An annuity is a contract, so you get what you pay for. For example, 20 years ago if someone took out a £100000 annuity they would get an income of about £10000. If they did the same today, they will be lucky to get £3500. The income depends on the rate of inflation.”

    Hal,
    I believe you are practically saying that if, today, someone took $100,000 to an insurance company and purchased an annuity, they would be lucky to receive a pension of $3,500. You are also saying that the amount of the pension depends on the rate of inflation.

    It is extremely important to understand that when an actuary prices an annuity, he uses one rate of interest throughout, or a different set of interest rates for given time periods. With the rate of longevity (or mortality) held constant, the higher the interest rate used in pricing, the higher the amount of pension the annuitant will receive.

    In addition to the interest rate, the actuary must use a mortality table in pricing which shows the probability of an individual surviving from one year to the next.
    With the rate of interest held constant, a mortality table which uses higher probabilities of surviving from one year to the next, will result in the annuitant receiving a smaller pension.

    Evidently, the pricing of an annuity contract involves the use of an interest rate, or rates, and a mortality table, rather than on the rate of inflation.

    Using an interest rate of 3.5%, and a popular mortality table of today, an annuitant should receive about $8,300 per year in pension if he purchases an annuity contract for $100,000.

    A footnote on mortality tables.
    Barbados does not have its own mortality table, so it has been assumed that the life expectancy of a Barbadian is roughly about 7 years worse than his North American counterpart. Put differently, for insurance purposes, a 50- year old Barbadian has been treated as a 57- year old American when pricing a life insurance policy. Thus, a 50-year old Barbadian would pay a higher premium than a 50-year old American, if they purchased the same insurance policy. This higher premium arises simply from the assertion that the Barbadian is living in the “third world” and thus have a shorter life expectancy.

    Like

  • …and would thus have a shorter…..

    Like

  • Mine was a defined benefit plan. Since I could take 25% tax free i did so as i had to attend to some matters which required an infusion of cash. It is 5 year certain, and until death thereafter. Unfortunately it is not indexed to inflation. And fortunately/unfortunately our family is long lived so I am wondering how much value will be lost to inflation by the time I am 90. We, the group of former employees may have at some point to go back to my former employer who allegedly has deep pockets. But it is not an immediate problem. I will continue to grow much of my own food as i can cut about $150 off my food bill by doing so. At some point in the future I might have to hit up the “kids”, but by the time I am 90 alas they will also be old age pensioners themselves.

    Like

  • Hal Austin
    August 15, 2020 3:00 PM

    “Further, in the UK, with the Age Discrimination Act, a person does not have to retire at the scheme or the state retirement ages and may continue working and contributing to their work-place pension.”

    Hal,
    In the USA, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) does a similar thing. It protects workers age 40 and over from discriminatory practices related to hiring, promotions, firing etc.

    The normal retirement age under most private sector pension plans is 65, but no prudent employer in the USA would tell an employee to go home simply because he/she has reached age 65. That action would expose the employer to a lawsuit.

    Most employees voluntarily retire at age 65. Some work on and start to receive a higher monthly pension when they finally retire after age 65.

    Some pension plans allow an employee to receive a pension at age 65, whilst they continue to work beyond age 65. Some stipulate that the employee must cease working before they can receive a pension. Everything depends on the plan and how it is supposed to be administered.

    In Barbados there is neither ADEA nor ADA and, consequently, many employers “send home” employees simply because they have reached age 65, the Normal Retirement Age under the pension plan. Alternatively, some employers “allow” certain employees to work past age 65. This is not the way it ought to be.

    Like

  • Cuhdear Bajan
    August 15, 2020 8:17 PM

    “Mine was a defined benefit plan. …. It is 5 year certain, and until death thereafter. Unfortunately it is not indexed to inflation. And fortunately/unfortunately our family is long lived so I am wondering how much value will be lost to inflation by the time I am 90. We, the group of former employees may have at some point to go back to my former employer who allegedly has deep pockets.”

    Cuhdear Bajan
    Many pension plans do not carry a built-in Cost of Living Allowance (COLA). Your group of former employees might have had a much better chance of getting the employer to inject a COLA into the plan before Covid-19 struck.

    It is not the deep pockets of the employer that will determine if he considers a COLA. It is the level of profits which the company is expected to make in the future, and the assets of the trust fund compared to the size of its liabilities that will determine how the employer reacts. The actuary will advise him/her how much the COLA will cost to implement.

    If your employer is operating in Barbados, like employers everywhere else (forget Amazon, Fedex etc for the time being) he/she is currently experiencing great anxiety and uncertainty. Now might not be the right time to approach him with a COLA request.

    I certainly understand your situation, and hope that you and your group are able to get the COLA somewhere down the road. As the saying goes, “where there is life, there is hope.”

    Like

  • Understood. Agreed that in the COVID era a raise, a COLA, is unlikely.

    Sigh!

    Like

  • @ Critical Analyser once a Beneficiary is named on it… that’s it, nobody would know. Chargeanyone who discloses information….
    Not quite so.
    1 When an Attorney is handling a deceased estate they write to the last employers and all Insurance and Banks and ask for information about the deceased and his assets. It is a “Right to Information”
    2 Not if the heir is protected or represented by someone like me.
    3 Remember the defendant said everything belonged to the heir, consciously or unconsciously.
    4 PENSIONS IS NOT INSURANCE. That named Beneficiary only applies to Insurance.
    In the defendant’s first response to the Claim she asked ‘how am I to know what the deceased intended’ referring to her name being attached to the Form. In the Affidavit, however, she stated” I had a very close relationship with my brother. He made his intentions very clear to me”

    Not cool in a court of law
    Not cool on sworn affidavit

    Like

  • WURU-WAR-on-you and others attorney should have charged the Claimant and etc…..

    Not the Claimant. The attorney for the Defendant. But they had to know. They didn’t know.
    The irony and real scandal is that Ms Sharon Dean, ICB’s Attorney at the time is the one who not only advised the Defendant that she was entitled to the proceeds because her name was on it, but she called my house (representing the Defendant, evidently) to tell me that the defendant had taken the Taxi off of the road and there were no funds to pass on to the heir from that source.

    Figure that one.

    ICB as Trustee of a Group non-contributory Pension and advising that any butcher or candlestick maker can be placed on the Beneficiary Form and the company would pay out the proceeds. Perhaps, Perhaps.Perhaps.
    A state funded Corporation, funding a PENSION PLAN (All workers Pensions sanctioned by ILO) and Tom Dick and Harry can benefit
    That smacks of Fraud to me.

    Like

  • @Cudear Bajan
    Cudear banal as usual. The law really isn’t interested in you. The law provides for the child (always)
    Read. Be informed. Ask questions to gain knowledge not to antagonize.

    Like

  • @ Hal Austin the long comment
    You are correct.
    Your suggestion about seeking advice from a Financial Planner and not an attorney is also invaluable.
    That was the whole corollary with this case. As soon as attorneys heard Pension they saw money and began grabbing. None of them specialize in Trusts but undertake to advise and wrongly so. That’s why they were batting all over the field and send me running all around. But as I said (I understudied Trump-believe it or not, Buffett, Murdock, Romley, Koch) and had learned about Tax avoidance and Trusts and came across Pensions) I began from the point of Trusts and moved along that trajectory. So regardless of what attorneys were saying if it wasn’t what I wanted to hear I shifted and left them there.

    attorneys don’t specialize they have elementary knowledge of everything.

    Like

  • @ BU it would be nicer to discuss Pensions in a Barbados context
    Perhaps someone from FSC or ICBL would have to be invited. Hal is giving instructions from his body of knowledge. Suffice to say all these English Speaking Caribbean took their cue from UK Pensions.

    My experience as I tried to outline as fairly as I could is that the Managers of this particular CBC/ICB non-contributory Group Pension Plan did not know the wherewithal of this Plan.
    ICB didn’t even operate with any ethics. Their attorney representing (at that time) the named beneficiary. Double jeapordy

    Like

  • @ Walter Blackman Pensions is not Insurance
    I know where you are coming from and you have a point and correct too. It is why I asked the Officer to explain her statement. Once upon a time they were one and the same and operated by one Law. But there was the Maxwell Scandal (international) and it was decided to separate them each having its own Act and Supervised now by a Govt agency such as IRS or FSC depending on the jurisdiction.

    There is a difference in the function but both are future financial protection. Insurance is protection against sudden loss of finances due to death while Pension is that support beyond employment

    Like

  • @Curley 16 * some information within this .. is incorrect*
    You might be right on technicalities. I am just reading from the Members’ Hand Book. CBC administrators the Plan as it relates to who is eligible to join and it is they who advises ICB when and to whom to pay the proceeds and such likes.
    As you correctly state, the named Beneficiary usually is spouse and children or child/children in absence of spouse. The reason being that Pensions are intended for dependants only.
    There is so much to learn about Pensions. Each is different depending on who owns it.
    This plan is a “Non-Contributory” Plan. CBC funds it totally, this CBC has authority to accept or reject the person the employee names if that person is other than a spouse child or known dependant

    Like

  • @Hal AUstin I invited a senior lawyer to address attorneys here
    Perhaps you are an attorney or you are an academic in the field
    Hal, I have to repeat my favourite quote for the legal landscape. “you don’t know what you do not know”
    I do not get the impression that they are interested in knowing better or more or different. Why I say it is a Twilight zone here. While the rest of the developed world is clapping, 1 2, 1,2 they here seem to be clapping 2,2, 2,3 Point in case, Strike Outs are frowned upon elsewhere unless it is plain and obvious that it cannot succeed at trial. Now I always get licks to understand what that means in plain English because this tool is one that attorneys rush for the way men rush for good sex.

    There are other items more troubling too.
    There is a rotten rut. Young ones come in and fall in.
    And the beat goes on
    Just last year the CCJ had some scalding remarks for some attorneys who appeared before them.

    Like

  • @WURU_WAR-on-You

    Yes. You go to the courts for justice and that is the head place where your civil liberties are raped and plundered.
    The Claimants paid for stamps and filed the Claim and the Courts accepted it and gave a date, yet everything the date drew near the matters were postponed. It was evident that they took the Claim but never intended it to see the time of day. The institution operates like a Cult. Claimants are instructed/advised to seek Counsel’s advise but it is a cloaked warning. Except the Claimant didn’t recognize it.
    Again another violation of civil liberties. They want to dictate to you that you must give your hard-earned money to attorneys who either don’t know, have forgotten, or who can and will loose your case if filed or defended by the wrong Act.
    So you appear without an attorney, they bat your claim around all year or they strike out for simple technicalities and force you to go to Appeal or as Maria Agard did, give up.

    Like

  • @ Critical Analyser re your comments to Curley 16
    There are Pensions and there are Pensions
    If you take out a Private Pension you can name whomever you please as beneficiary.
    With a non-contributory Group Pension Plan however, you do not get to name whomever you want. The firm whose Pension it is, and who administers the plan decides who you can name as a beneficiary, and usually, that is a bonified dependant.
    In the case of CBC?ICB the Handbook named who/which relations can be beneficiaries The first two levels only.
    Again because of the Maxwell Scandal (persons using Pensions for other than what/who they were intended) the UN and ILO intervened and separated Insurance from Pensions and increased the ‘security’, oversight, and management of them.

    Like

  • @ Critical Analyser advise the claimant and charge them..etc
    I agree with you that some claims should not even be filed, so too some defenseless defenses. (attorneys will surely go belly up)
    But one has to be very careful as we are learning now with DNA that persons convicted and sentenced to death weren’t guilty at all.
    Again, many cases that look like no case on the surface get judgements at closer thorough scrutiny or at Appeal.
    I think you are overlooking a critical point. The Law which I believe you are standing on and allows for a named Beneficiary to be absolute came into effect in 1997.
    Since the Maxwell Scandal, Pension and Insurance are two separate and distinct instruments.
    Neither a Claimant or Defendant can use one to plead the other

    Like

  • @ Tony fix it. Overhaul it
    We are working on it 🙂
    But we have to change the mindset of the leaders. They must have the political will

    Like

  • @ Hal * I did not want to go into any long thing….*
    Bingo.
    You know Pensions. Please draw it to Critical analyzer et al… the statement at the bottom of your writing where you state that the ” … does not have to recognize who you named as Beneficiary.
    That is what was disappointing about CBC’s behaviour. Having been advised of a minor child and the only issue of the deceased, they did nothing. Ant the named beneficiary being a relative 4 paces down from the minor child where their beneficiary clause provided for spouse and child/ren only
    That’s why I gave the advice to mothers to know what their child(ren) is/are entitled to and ensure the paperwork is done properly and updated whenever a new child(ren) enters the fold or one leaves (18 +).

    Like

  • The particular CBC/ICB Statutory Corporations Pensions plan was a Death In Service rider and only spouse and child/ren were eligible.
    The ILO law doesn’t change for different employees and relationships

    Like

  • @ Walter

    I believe you are practically saying that if, today, someone took $100,000 to an insurance company and purchased an annuity, they would be lucky to receive a pension of $3,500. You are also saying that the amount of the pension depends on the rate of inflation.(Quote)

    The mortality t able is one of the metrics used by the actuary to make assumptions about the insured longevity, as you know better than I do. In the UK we use the Government Actuary Department’s (GAD’s) calculations.
    I am not saying that a beneficiary with a defined benefit (oar final salary)pension gets a pension based on inflation. I think you misunderstood what I said, or I said it badly.
    In the UK there is a triple-lock device that determines the annual increase in state pensions, of which the rate of inflation is one.
    The reason why a defined benefit pensions is also called a final salary pension is because the pension is based on the final salary, usually two-thirds (given the number of years worked).
    As to age discrimination, the way clever employers get round it is by claiming that your performance has deteriorated; my way round that was to update my skills constantly, and it was my intention to work on until I was on a Zimmer frame.
    What did it for me was when the Japanese bought the company. We had a fire alarm and when we assembled and I saw the number of Japanese who came out I was shocked.
    It became clear that they would enter the building and go to their offices and remain there for the day. I was also riding in the lift (escalator) with one of the canteen workers and jokingly said to her she must be learning Japanese, when she told me that they were taught how to make tea Japanese style, I decided there and then I could not work with such people.

    Like

  • Critical Analyzer

    @cherfleur
    In responding, I am not a lawyer nor insurance professional and my comments are made in a broad sense and not in relation to this specific case. Not being familiar with the situation, I will leave case specific arguments to those in the know. I’m also going to assume a minor is not in the mix since they tend to complicate matters and have special carve outs in the laws.

    Basically what I understand you to be saying in a general sense is the whole affair hinges on what powers the pension plan contract and any overriding laws gives to the plan’s trustee(the employer/CBC in this case) to abide by or go against the wishes of the deceased and if any such overriding decision taken by the trustee is discriminatory.

    It also sounds to me like the pensions act or whichever act applies might need re-examining/updating in relation to what right the plan trustee has to override the beneficiary named by the deceased since I can easily see that becoming a very slippery slope open to the trustee’s favoritism and prejudices based on their opinion of the deceased’s relationships. As far as I’m concerned, once the trustee accepts my beneficiary assignment form and it does not contravene the stated plan contract terms, that should be it.

    With regards to this case and cases of this type, the only defendants should be the trustee and or insurance company since they would have made the decision as to who gets the money. The person who received the funds (beneficiary) should be left completely out of the case. To me, it encourages vindictiveness on the plaintiff’s part to expect a beneficiary to have to have to defend against family members that did not agree with the wishes the deceased made with their property.

    Like

  • @ Cherfleur

    Can you share CBC Pension plan hand book, specifically…?

    What does it say specifically about registering, removing and updating beneficiaries?

    What does it say who are eligible?

    Like

  • Critical Analyzer

    There also should be no distinction made between the terms and conditions of an employee’s non-contributory vs contributory company pension plan. The employee would have contributed to said plan by virtue of working at the company.

    The only true non-contributory pension is the non-contributory government pension which we call the old age pension. As far as I’m concerned, all other pensions are contributory whether by financial means or time, blood, sweat and tears equity.

    Like

  • Critical Analyzer

    @cherfleur August 16, 2020 1:31 AM
    I agree with you that seemingly groundless and frivolous cases might actually be on good standings based on the laws of the land and precedents and it can be a ticklish thing to assume beforehand which is which.

    But I do believe something needs to be done to unclog the court system since we are now a major laughing stock. To fix I would change things such that
    1) All cases smaller that a certain size will have ONE and ONLY ONE sitting before a judge or tribunal before the decision is made. The two parties involved MUST present all their evidence and arguments in that sitting and the decision on those cases cannot be made into any case precedents. Larger cases would go through the normal court process.
    2) The presiding judge or tribunal as part of all judgements would also be required to make a determination as to whether the case brought is frivolous or not and if it is deemed to be frivolous, the lawyer bringing the case would have to pay all costs.

    I’m sure those two things would solve our court delays in short order.

    Like

  • “Again another violation of civil liberties. They want to dictate to you that you must give your hard-earned money to attorneys who either don’t know, have forgotten, or who can and will loose your case if filed or defended by the wrong Act.”

    that’s it in a nutshell…the judiciary clowns violate every treaty on human rights that they sign in the people’s name, but i will remind them about the same one AGAIN SOON….

    that’s their fraternity racket.

    Like

  • @ BU Steupse
    You might not agree with Hall’s adjectives but they system and practices are really rotten. You only know if and when you are personally involved from a Claiman’ts position.
    Most times its the system that you have to fight. Conquer that and the Defendant is rudderless.

    Like

  • @BU * care to share CBC/ICB’s Terms as per Handbook*
    In a nutshell, the Beneficiaries are to be only dependants (as is for State or CorporationsPensions all over the world). Pensions are Trusts. CBC?ICB is the owner of the Plan and has the final say in who is acceptable as Beneficiary; they do not have to accept the employees’ beneficiary.

    Like

  • Under the CBC plan was a Board of Trustees setup?

    Like

  • @ BU what does it say specifically about updating….
    An employee during his employment can go to HR at any time and request a new Beneficiary Form and change the name of the Beneficiary.

    …Men’ especially, have new births and forget or do not knok that they must update their Beneficiaries. Also new relationships/marriages. A Will DOES NOT OVERRIDE THE NAMED BENEFICIARY. However, as stated before CBC/IBC has final adjudication as to who gets it – DEPENDANTS.
    CBC/ICB are very poor Managers/Trustees of the Plan. Evidently they did not ask the relationship of the named beneficiary.
    Essentially, a man can name anybody not related (for whatever malicious or vindictive reason) and draw down on CBC’s funds. The Scheme is intended to be a cushion for dependants if the breadwinner dies. Further, it is part of what could be the employee’s entitlements/benefits that the firm is investing, on his behalf, to ensure that his dependants are not left homeless and destitute from sudden death.- my articulation.

    The Maxwell Scandal is very informative.

    Like

  • @Cherfleur

    I reported on the Maxwell Scandal (the bouncing Czech) as a news event – tracking his time minute by minute to the time he went missing from the yacht. I also reported on it as a long-running pensions case. He once gave me a T-shirt when he was the Aids campaigner.

    Like

Join in the discussion, you never know how expressing your view may make a difference.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s