H&F Pension
Fund has seven Community Admission Bodies. Three no longer have any
active members. Regulation 38 of the Local Government Pension
Scheme (Administration) Regulations (the Regulations) now requires
the Fund to treat these organisations as exiting employers. There
are three options for doing this. Each deals differently with their
outstanding liabilities and the exit payments required to cover
those liabilities.
The preferred option for exiting the organisations allows the Fund
to fulfil its obligations under the Regulations while recovering
some of their deficit to the Fund. The paper recommends that
H&F Council should agree to act as guarantor for all three
organisations to enable the Pension Fund to exit them on an
on-going basis and agree repayment plans with two of the three
organisations.
The recommendation has financial implications for the Council. It
creates a liability which would be another factor to consider at
the time of the next triennial review and might, therefore, impact
on the Council’s contribution rate. However, it may be
helpful to have in mind here that the Community Admission Bodies
accounted for only 0.8% of the deficit when it was last measured at
the triennial valuation at 31st March 2013.
Decision type: Key
Reason Key: Expenditure/Income over £5m & policies or new income, reserves use, overspend over £300K;
Decision status: Recommendations Approved
Wards affected: (All Wards);
Notice of proposed decision first published: 03/10/2014
Report access: Exempt;
Decision due: 5 Jan 2015 by Cabinet
Lead member: Cabinet Member for Finance and Reform
Department: Finance Department
Contact: George Lepine Email: george.lepine@HFHomes.org.uk Tel: 0208 753 4975.
Reason No Public Access: PART OPEN PART PRIVATE Part of this report is exempt from disclosure on the grounds that it contains information relating to the financial or business affairs of a particular person (including the authority holding that information) under paragraph 3 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, and in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.