Dear Staffordshire Fire and Rescue Service,
I would like to ask a question about information contained within your Statement of Accounts 2013/2014. My question is in 3 parts.

1) Specifically, in the table at Note 24, page 52, was the figure of £216,730 (rounded for accounting) used to bolster the retirement lump sum of 1 individual?

2) Was this achieved by paying the lump sum of £216,730, from the services budget, into the FPF (Firefighters Pension Fund) to enable that individual to draw an enhanced lump sum, which would have been increased by the full £216,730 sum paid into the FPF?

3) As the mechanism to achieve this is Rule B7(5A) from the FPS 1992, who granted this payment?

Yours faithfully,

Robert Moss

Dear Freedom of Information,
Do you have an update on this request, please?

Yours sincerely,

Robert Moss

Dear Staffordshire Fire and Rescue Service,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Staffordshire Fire and Rescue Service's handling of my FOI request 'Statement of accounts 2013/2014, was the amount of £216,730 in the exit table used to bolster a retirement lump sum?'.

I have previously ascertained that the authority has paid out a pension lump sum under rule B7(5A) of the FPS 1992 pension scheme. I did not think it unreasonable to ask if the sum referenced in this request was paid out under that rule. A yes or no answer to my question would have sufficed and no more detail would have been required to this particular question. Can you answer that specific question please? I already believe I know the answer to that question and I shall explain why but it would be helpful if you confirmed or denied the specific answer to my question, I believe the question is in the public interest.

A factsheet on Rule B7(5A) can be found at the link below
https://www.fpsregs.org/images/admin/Com...

The commutation factors which were relevant at that time can be found at the link below
https://fpsregs.org/images/GAD/Commutati...

The calculation may be done in two parts, maximum commutation under the Rule of 75 and maximum commutation (of 25%) if there were otherwise no restrictions. The rationale is to process these two lump sums and determine the shortfall inherent under Rule 75 by deducting the smaller sum from the larger sum to arrive at a discretionary amount which the authority may elect to pay. The methodology of that additional payment is defined in the factsheet linked to above.

Max lump sum under Rule of 75
A) (115898/60) X 34 = 65,675.53
65,675.53 X 2.25 = 147,769.95

Max unrestricted lump sum
B)(115898/60) X 34 = 65,675.53
( 65,675.53/4) X 22.2 = 364,499.19

Difference between maximum lump sum and lump sum under Rule of 75
364,499.19 - 147,769.95 = 216,729.24 (rounded up to the next whole pound for accounting, 216,730).

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/s...

Yours faithfully,

Robert Moss