Teachers blocked from swapping gold-plated pensions for higher salaries
United Learning, England's largest academy trust, wrote to teachers last summer offering pay rises of up to 15pc to leave the Teachers' Pension Scheme.
However, the Department for Education has now opposed the move, according to reports in the i newspaper.
It comes as current and former teachers launch legal action against the Teachers' Pension Scheme over severe pension valuations delays.
Teaching staff are automatically enrolled in the generous pension scheme and pay between 7.4pc and 11.7pc of their salary in contributions, with a further 28.7pc added by their employer.
Contributions are boosted by inflation each year, plus another 1.6pc for those still teaching. Upon retirement, the final pot provides retirees with inflation-linked pensions for life that already cost the taxpayer £1bn a month.
Although state schools must legally offer the scheme, teachers can opt out and United Learning planned to induce this by offering increased pay and a less generous pension from April.
Starting salaries would have jumped from £32,850 to almost £38,000 outside London and from £39,000 to £45,000 inside London.
However, teaching unions said the move was 'robbing Peter to pay Paul' and asked Bridget Phillipson, the Education Secretary, to intervene.
Civil servants have now reportedly written to United Learning – which contains nearly 100 academies – and opposed the plan. It is understood that the Government suggested that part of the trust's funding could be ring-fenced unless it was used to pay pension contributions, before warning of a financial notice to improve from the Education and Skills Funding Agency.
When approached by The Telegraph, the Department for Education declined to comment but did not deny the reports.
It comes after law firm Leigh Day and teachers union NASUWT on Monday launched a legal claim against the Government over long-running pension delays.
Pension valuations, known as Cash Equivalent Transfer Values, are usually requested in instances of divorce as a pension needs to be valued when assets are split.
Official guidelines state that they should usually be completed within three months, or six months in exceptional cases, but the process has since October been wracked with delays.
A Freedom of Information request by The Telegraph revealed that 1,053 were outstanding at the end of January. Almost 400 teachers had experienced delays of more than six months and 160 had waited over a year, while the oldest overdue case was first lodged in April 2023.
One teacher told The Telegraph she had waited more than nine months, which had affected her health and left her trapped.
According to the latest figures available, 621 are still outstanding, and the two organisations claimed the delays were causing financial losses and emotional stress
Patrick Roach, the general secretary of NASUWT, said the time for excuses was over.
He said: 'The unacceptable delays in processing CETV requests are placing intolerable financial and emotional burdens on teachers, many of whom are already dealing with significant personal challenges such as divorce or separation. Teachers who have dedicated their careers to public service deserve better than to be left in limbo.'
Ryan Bradshaw, of Leigh Day said: 'This backlog must be cleared immediately, and those affected deserve compensation for their financial losses and the stress endured. Without proper accountability and reform, this situation sets a dangerous precedent for how we value and treat our public servants.'
The Department for Education was contacted for comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
How Rachel Reeves can raise money and also make the tax system fairer
The chancellor is missing an open goal by looking at inheritance tax while searching for the elusive billions needed to fix Britain (Treasury targeting inheritance tax reforms to help plug UK deficit, 12 August). The tax needs significant reform to make it fit for the 21st century, but it isn't the magic bullet the government is after. At the budget, Rachel Reeves could generate tens of billions of pounds by making tax changes that are overwhelmingly popular with the public and would be paid only by those with the broadest shoulders. Three-quarters of us want a wealth tax on net fortunes over £10m (backed by world-leading economists). Equalising capital gains tax with income tax is favoured by the majority too. The problem is that currently there's a Britain for the haves, and a Britain for the have-nots. If you get an income from extreme wealth (often inherited or accumulated through 'passive assets' such as property or investment), you get preferential treatment over people who work as a cleaner or a nurse, or in a warehouse or classroom. Just look at when Rishi Sunak released his tax return. He is from one of the UK's 350 richest families, yet paid the same effective tax rate as an average teacher, despite having income more than 50 times higher. That doesn't sound fair to me, and it won't sound fair to millions of people across the country who are struggling to get by and fed up with politics working for the rich and powerful over everyone BoswellHead of advocacy and policy, Tax Justice UK Labour clearly has the interests of the 1% at heart above all others. Inheritance tax is hated by most; it appears to be a tax on ambition. Work all your life and, when you die, the government comes along and helps itself. In contrast, it is easy for the 1% to avoid it, using trusts, hiding assets offshore and there are even insurance policies that pay out if your estate is hit by IHT. Yes we need a wealth tax, but an even easier choice is simply to equalise capital gains and dividend tax rates with income tax and national insurance, and remove the additional capital gains and dividend tax allowances, so everyone gets a single £12,570 personal BowserHolmer Green, Buckinghamshire Amazingly, there are people who think somebody earning £20,000 a year should pay tax, while people who inherit £200,000 shouldn't. Alan FairsBewdley, Worcestershire Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
North Wales Live
2 hours ago
- North Wales Live
Rail fare hike looms with potential 5.5% increase sparking outrage among passengers
Transport can be expensive whether that's air fare, petrol money or train travel. With the latter, passengers in the UK are being warning that ticket prices could rise by as much at 5.5% in the next round of price hikes. The July Retail Prices Index (RPI) figure, which is frequently used to calculate the annual rise in rail travel costs, will be revealed on Wednesday, August 20, and that could mean higher fares for passengers in England. Meanwhile, Transport for Wales are offering £1 rail fares for a short period of time, you can read more here. Transport organisations have been left furious by the potential rise in next year's railway fares, which they have condemned as "outrageous". Just last year the Department for Transport confirmed costs would rise by 4.6%, but it looks like they may rise again. RPI is an inflation measure - released monthly - which is utilised to gauge the change in the price of retail goods and services. For money-saving tips, sign up to our Money newsletter here. It wasn't employed in 2022 or 2023, but it was in 2024, when the Department for Transport confirmed costs would rise by 4.6% - one percentage point above last July's RPI figure. These alterations to fares took effect on March 2 this year. The Government has yet to announce how it will calculate next year's railway fare increase, although banking firm Investec has predicted this year's July RPI figure at 4.5%, meaning costs could leap by 5.5% in March 2026. Bruce Williamson, of campaign group Railfuture, raged there was "no justification" for the massive increase. He said: "What would be the justification for jacking up fares above inflation? There isn't any." He continued: "It's ripping off the customer, driving people off the trains and on to our congested road network, which is in no one's interest. "One would hope that there would be some efficiency savings and economies of scale that you get from having a more integrated railway. "But I strongly suspect that if there are any savings to be had, they'd be swallowed up by the Treasury and not passed back to passengers, which I think is wrong." Around 45% of fares across Britain's railway network are regulated by either Westminster or the Scottish and Welsh governments. This encompasses season tickets for most commuter routes, certain off-peak return fares and flexible tickets for journeys around major urban areas. Railway operators determine increases for unregulated fares, though these are expected to closely mirror changes in regulated ticket costs. Ben Plowden, chief executive of Campaign for Better Transport, argued that costly fares were "putting people off" using trains. He continued: "Rising fares are not just burdening passengers, they are putting people off rail travel. "Our survey found that 71% of people would be more likely to take the train if fares were cheaper. Public support for nationalisation plummets if fares continue to rise. "As the Government progresses plans for Great British Railways, it must take the opportunity to reform fares and make rail travel more affordable." An open return ticket from Cardiff Central to Edinburgh will set you back a whopping £239.50 (with a booking fee) if you buy the ticket in advance on Trainline. However, you can find return flights from Cardiff airport to Edinburgh airport with Ryan Air for over half of the price at £108 on Skyscanner. The Department for Transport has confirmed that "no decision" has been made regarding fares for the upcoming year. A spokesperson stated: "The Transport Secretary has made clear her number one priority is getting the railways back to a place where people can rely on them. "No decisions have been made on next year's rail fares but our aim is that prices balance affordability for both passengers and taxpayers."
BBC News
2 hours ago
- BBC News
Fears horse racing betting tax proposal could hit Newmarket
There are fears a proposed betting tax hike could damage the historic home of horse government is proposing to increase the 15% tax rate paid on horse racing bets, aligning it with online gambling and casinos, which are currently taxed at 21%.People in Newmarket, Suffolk, which has a long association with the sport, feared this could negatively impact the town and result in fewer people working in the industry.A spokesperson for the Treasury said the UK's gambling tax system was "outdated and inconsistent". Research from the British Horseracing Authority warned the tax hike could cost the sport £330m over five years and threaten 2,752 jobs in the first year. Horse racing is the second-biggest spectator sport in Britain behind football, and it was feared the hike would lead to less promotion and sponsorship of the sport, worse odds and reduced bonuses for customers, ultimately making it less attractive. Stuart Williams is a Newmarket horse trainer and felt the tax increase was a "real threat".He argued that since casino slot machines were often made in other countries, there was no large industry behind its operation."The horseracing industry is a huge industry, a world-leading industry that creates inward investment for this country, millions and millions of pounds worth of investment and creates a huge amount of work for the rural economy," he added. Steve Elsom, chair of Love Newmarket Business Improvement District (BID), said the wider Newmarket business economy could similarly feel the effects of the tax increase on bookmakers."If bookmakers decide they are going to spend less of their revenue in racing, that will have an obvious effect on towns like Newmarket," he said."There are half a dozen bookmaker premises in town, but more broadly they spend a lot of money in and around the horse racing sport."Horse racing is the second most-watched sport in the UK, but gets very little column inches."So any diminution of money going into racing will have an adverse impact." 'Make it harder' Vicky Snell, who owns Victor Victoria Coffee in Newmarket, said she saw an increase in business during race meets."I think it will change the landscape," she said. "Stables will probably have to cut their work staff, which means less people coming in on a daily basis, so it's not all about the racing."I think it will make it harder within Newmarket." The government is looking to bring existing online betting duties into one single rate.A Treasury spokesperson said: "The UK's gambling tax system is outdated and inconsistent, which is why we are consulting on how to level the playing field so all online gambling pays the same rate, working closely with the horse racing sector."The Treasury added there were no plans to change the ways bets are made at racecourses, which are exempt from any tax. Follow Suffolk news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.
