Caring for BA pensionable people today and tomorrow
President: George Bell Chairman: Dayne Markham
5 Heathrow Boulevard, 278 Bath Road, West Drayton, Middx. UB7 0DQ
Newsbrief No.87
16th July 2011
Stop Press
Please ensure that you have voted in the Pensioner Trustee Ballots for the 3 Pensioner Trustee Candidates:
Paul Douglas
Cliff Pocock
Graham Tomlin
Please also ensure you have answered the 3 Question Ballot with:
Yes
Yes
Yes
Any problems about these Ballots please call: ABAP 01489 782 637
Contents
1. APS Beneficiaries Ascot CPI/RPI Meeting Report.
2. NAPS Beneficiaries CPI/RPI Meeting Progress
3. BA Widows/ers Trustee Vote : Action
4. RPI Fighting Fund Update.
1. APS Beneficiaries Ascot CPI/RPI Meeting Report July 11th.
The venue and arrangements for this meeting were worked out by BA Pensions in consultation with ABAP. Of course BA Pensions are not normally event organisers so this was extra work.
As the numbers attending increased there were two identical meetings, morning & afternoon.
There were over 850 beneficiaries at each meeting together with some 800 proxy voters.
This made a “total attendance” in the order of 2500 beneficiaries making Ascot the largest meeting in BA Pensions’ history - so far. Clearly many live overseas or too far away in UK to attend and many, with the APS pensioners’ average age being 78 years, none too keen to travel at all.
The actual meeting setup itself was not so smooth; but through no fault of Pensions staff.
The Beneficiaries selected an independent chairman Capt Mike Palmer. But the Beneficiarie’s Representatives who were the recently resigned Trustees: Mike Post, Cliff Pocock & Graham Tomlin were not allowed to sit on the podium with the Trustees Chairman & his advisers, despite an earlier understanding to do so.
Neither were they permitted to have their own professional advisers with them like the Trustee Chairman.
This could have turned ugly but Capt Palmer declined at the opening of the meeting to sit on the podium and instead chose to operate from amongst the pensioner audience as a mobile Chairman.
It worked extremely well, leaving the BA Pensions team alone on the podium.
This team was Paul Spencer Chairman of Trustees, Michael Pardoe, Scheme Actuary of Towers Watson, Antony Arter, Solicitor of Eversheds.
Paul Spencer spoke first. All pensioners have heard from him about CPI/RPI & the scheme several times in recent weeks so suffice to say he reminded us of the duties of Trustees, the background of how the Trustees Board operated, the current level of risk & finally he emphasised the prudence with which they made their decisions. (Comment: But the salient points of the present situation
were mainly glossed over or avoided).
Michael Pardoe the Scheme Actuary then spoke about the position of CPI versus RPI, and the on the financial position of paying RPI increases, the scheme rules, level of scheme funding and how being in deficit really precluded increases using RPI bearing in mind increased longevity and the situation if RPI was paid & BA were to go broke; plus making it difficult to decide the total scheme liabilities. (Comment: What was not said was that all these items are always present and that has not stopped APS paying RPI in the past when the scheme deficit was much greater when there was no recovery plan. Now there is an agreed plan - and using RPI as a basis) Antony Arter the Scheme Lawyer spoke at some length on the Scheme Rules, and their mandatory
following by the Trustees, and the legal implications on paying annual increases as ordered by the Govt Annual Review Order. (Comment: He did not mention the scandalous fact that the Deed & Rules of APS have erroneously remained the same from nationalisation to privatisation when clearly a trustee ordered review at the time of changeover should have happened to legally uncouple the BA Pension schemes from the State sector. It is obvious that had this correctly happened the present dispute could not have occurred)
There now follows a full report on the presentations by Cliff Pocock. Mike Post & Graham Tomlin.
These statements are compiled from notes & have not guaranteed 100% accuracy.
CLIFF POCOCK: This issue has been painted in the last half-hour as a pretty complex issue. I have to tell you that it actually boils down to some very simple principles:
Since the introduction of Part 6 of APS in 1973, pensioners have not received anything other than RPI in pension increases. Every single valuation, every single calculation, every single individual decision by you all has been made on the assumption that RPI increases have always
been paid.
Now, in my view, that imposes and overwhelming moral obligation, if not a legal obligation on the Trustees to pay RPI.
Now, the chairman of the trustees has said that RPI is not affordable. That is not what he was saying twelve months ago, because on 30 June 2010 he signed a valuation and funding plan based on RPI. That was eight days after the government announced it was adopting CPI for the public sector. So, a week after that, he signed a valuation and funding plan based on RPI. BA also
signed up to that plan; Michael signed up to the plan; I signed up to that plan: a perfectly prudent funding plan based on RPI.
So, I have to ask the chairman of the trustees, “What’s changed in the last twelve months?”, and the answer is, “Absolutely nothing.” Except, BA has got stronger in the last twelve months; it now has more cash than it had twelve months ago; and of course it’s now a member of IAG. (with
Iberia)
So, either the trustees were wrong twelve months ago, or they are wrong now. They cannot be right on both occasions.
There has much been made of the security of the fund. I have to tell you that APS is a very secure fund. BA’s own accounting valuation shows APS in surplus, which is very comforting.
However, the trustees’ own very prudent valuation shows the APS funding level to be at 92%, but as mentioned, there is a funding plan in place to cover that 8% deficit.
What hasn’t been mentioned is that BA has committed, in good years, to pay additional cash contributions into both APS and NAPS. This is a cash sweep.
Also what hasn’t been mentioned, is that overlaying all of those pension contributions are two, very substantial, contingent assets worth £480 million. They become payable should BA be unable to meet its obligations. So, APS is a very secure fund - security is not an issue in this
discussion.
Now, it’s been put to you that reduced deficit is very good for APS members, because it adds to your security. Well, reduced deficit is very good for BA, because when the deficit goes down to zero, BA obviously cease paying deficit contributions into APS. That is very good news for NAPS, because when that happens, all that allocated funding can be reallocated to NAPS.
Now, two other things happen as we approach full funding:
If the cash sweep I’ve talked about is all reallocated; you’ve guessed it, it all goes to NAPS.
Another thing that happens is those two lovely contingent assets that we’ve got, that effectively insure our deficit, they both fall away. £230 million goes back to BA, because it’s no longer
required. £250 million is reallocated, guess where, to NAPS. So, the reduced deficit in NAPS is very good for BA, is very good for NAPS, but it’s not good for you because you are paying for that reduced deficit. It’s your money that’s funding that reduced deficit.
Now, I know that pensioners don’t like writing letters, but if you write to ask a pensions lawyer or the pensions regulator one question, ask them who is responsible for funding the deficits on APS. They will tell you that legislation requires that it is the employer that is responsible for fund deficit on APS; it is not the members.
Now, BA’s own estimate of the benefit or reduced deficit, as Michael has pointed out on his slide, is around £270 million, which of course assumes a CPI/RPI gap of 0.5% - sorry to give you figures. The government currently estimates that the gap will be on average just under 1%. So, as
Michael showed on the slide, we can assume the benefit to BA and the cost to you is something in excess of £400 million in APS alone. APS alone. That’s £400 million that you will not receive in pension payments. That’s £400 million that BA will not have to pay out in deficit contributions.
That is why we constantly refer to the “transfer of benefit”, from you to BA, or more accurately, IAG shareholders.
Now, much has been made of the fact that we can’t afford to pay you RPI now, but we are going to pay you RPI sometime later. Let’s examine that a little bit. The funding plan currently in place until 2023 is based on RPI data increases. There are four valuations between now and 2023 and for each of those valuations the funding values is back on the table for renegotiation. The first
valuation is just next year in 2012 and BA are perfectly entitled to say to the trustees, “You are only paying CPI. Why should we fund more than CPI?” And indeed they will be under huge pressure to their own shareholders and of course from the NAPS Trustees do just that, because why should they overfund liabilities? They will not have to. There will be great pressure to ratchet down their funding plan to match CPI liabilities. Once that happens, you will never see RPI again. It will never happen because the assets will never be there to fund RPI. I just do not believe that plan is realistic.
Now there has been a lot of discussion about the appropriateness of the CPI and we have all seen there is a challenge in the courts with the public sector schemes. Is it the right index for APS? Well the rules of APS say that the trustees are required to adopt a national index which reflects fluctuations in the cost of living. CPI doesn’t intend to do that because of the Principle
of Substitution. What it assumes is that if all of you who buy your groceries from Waitrose, or Tesco’s or Asda, when the prices go up, we all move down to Aldi. After Aldi I am not sure where you will go after that! It guarantees that you will have to trade down, so it builds in a declining standard of living. It guarantees a declining standard of living, which is something that this scheme was not intended to do. This scheme was intended to maintain your standard of living in retirement. CPI will not do that.
Now, the rules I have just quoted require the trustees to carry out a formal assessment of whether CPI is an appropriate index for APS. The question I have to ask is, “Have the trustees carried out that formal evaluation seeking external, independent advice on the matter?” Because if they haven’t, they have let you down and breached their duties. If they have, I would like to know
how they interpret CPI as an index that reflects the fluctuations in cost of living on a year-to-year, like-for-like basis. It doesn’t.
I’d like to say just a couple of words before I close about the legal channels. Much has been made of the fact that the trustees have gone to leading counsel and sought leading counsel’s advice. I can tell you I was there, so I was aware of the consultations that took place. Let me tell something about talking to leading counsel: when you go to leading counsel you give them instructions, so
you ask questions and you get answers to the questions you have asked. You don’t get answers to the questions you don’t ask. So, if the trustees have decided that they are going to pay CPI, that is the scenario they build up, and that’s the scenario they take to leading counsel and that’s the advice they get. If another set of trustees say they desperately want to use RPI, they take a different set of questions to leading counsel and they get a different set of answers. So don’t let us be overly impressed by the fact that a very eminent pensions barrister has advised the trustees because he has only advised them on the questions that he has been asked.
Now the only way to resolve this issue once and for all is to take the matter to Court because, if
you go to Court, the Trustees will be represented, you will be represented by a QC; and BA, if they wish to be there, will also be represented. At that point, all the issues can go on the table and it can be decided by the Court what is the most appropriate index for APS. Now it has been said that course of action is very expensive, and it can be; it could be £2-4 million of our money, but as I have already mentioned, CPI is very expensive. It is going to cost you £400 million at least. The actuaries quoted a figure that came out as a figure above £600 million possibly, so that is very expensive.
CHAIR: Thank you very much and now I will call on Mike Post.
MIKE POST: Thank you all for coming. I resigned in March because the APS trustee board had not acted in the best interest of the beneficiaries. But I must tell you know that all six elected trustees, including the three who chose not to resign, voted in Favour of retaining RPI increases and in Favour of having a discretionary increase this year. The six BA appointed trustees all voted Against retaining RPI and Against paying any discretionary increase. Eight out of twelve
trustees were required to vote in favour for RPI to be retained or for a discretionary increase to be paid.
Why has the APS trustee board failed us? Why didn’t it use its unique power, which hasn’t been discussed today, to retain RPI? Before I answer that question, I should like to pay tribute to two outstanding former chairmen of APS, Mervyn Walker and Roger Maynard, with whom I worked during difficult times of change. They handled the conflicts with skill. They were also extremely
diligent and focused with a deep knowledge of the APS rules, its history and the expectations of the members.
In 1948, APS was formed with an equal number of appointed and elected trustees. All the trustees were APS beneficiaries. In 1984, NAPS was formed following BA’s privatization. We APS members refused inducements of almost a year’s salary to leave APS and transfer to NAPS.
APS was promised unlimited inflation-proofing and we are now promised limited inflation proofing. NAPS is an inferior scheme with lower contributions, lower pensions and capped pension increases. APS members rejected inducements and paid contributions 30-50% higher than NAPS in return for the promise of unlimited inflation-proofing.
By just rolling over and adopting CPI, inflation-proofing is being limited. From 1984, APS and NAPS shared common trustees. This was disastrous for the governance of APS. Eight trustees are required to approve a valid rule change. Numerous rule changes were nodded through the 1980s
by seven trustees or fewer. Issues decided then included amending the trust deed for privatization and significantly the transfer of British Airways Helicopters’ pension money to Robert Maxwell’s pension fund. That’s not a laughing matter. One particular rule was introduced in 1986 by only
seven trustees. Eight is the minimum. This new rule allowed BA to award the APS trustees to make unfunded extra pension payments from surplus to whomsoever BA chose. BA wanted this new rule, and I quote from the minutes, “to bring APS into line with NAPS”. This was the inferior NAPS that had been set up a couple of years previously.
What the seven inquorate trustees had in fact done was to hand BA the key to the APS surplus cookie jar. In 1989, APS was in surplus. BA took a fourteen-year contribution holiday. Members of course continued to pay their own vastly higher contributions. On top of the contribution holiday, BA activated the 1986 “cookie jar” rule. BA started to order the spending of our APS
surplus. BA used APS surplus to sweeten pay deals with unfunded pension improvements. By 2002, approximately £330 million of APS surplus (at 2002 value) had been paid out in this way. APS funds were depleted by £330 million. Even so, by 1998, APS was in £1 billion surplus. NAPS was starting into its spiral deficit. In 1999 therefore, BA proposed the APS/NAPS merger to further use the APS surplus for its own purposes. The common trustees quickly agreed the merger, subject to sought approval. APS members objected vigorously, as I am sure you will remember. The decision to merge was reversed 16 months later. The common trustee model had failed. The common trustees had wrongly sought to balance the interests of APS and NAPS beneficiaries. The trustees must not balance interests; it was their duty to act in the best interests of the beneficiaries. The common trustee model had been a disaster, which had harmed BA’s reputation.
I became a trustee and worked with Rob Webb QC, Mervyn Walker and PWC to address the problem. We agreed to split the APS and NAPS trustee boards. Only APS beneficiaries could now be APS elected trustees. Unfortunately, against my wishes, but for pragmatic reasons, the BA appointed trustees remained common to both schemes. This was a mistake. In 1948, all the
appointed trustees were APS members. How many of the BA appointed APS trustees do you think belong to APS today?
None.
Today not one of the BA appointed trustees is an APS member. The BA appointed and rewarded APS trustee chairman, Paul Spencer, is not independent; he’s actually rewarded by BA, not by the trust fund. He was appointed in 2010. The five other BA appointed trustees are all BA senior
managers. They are all beneficiaries and trustees of NAPS. None of the BA appointed trustees worked for BA in 1984. All BA corporate memory of the history of APS and the expectations of
APS members has been lost. Paul Spencer himself sometimes forgets that APS is protected by unlimited inflation-proofing, which you of course always recall. He’d even forgotten or didn’t know that fact on the day that I resigned. And that’s not funny either.
In February 2011, three of the five of the five BA appointed APS trustees had seen less than two months’ service as APS trustees. APS is a far better and more secure pension scheme than NAPS, but we have paid twice over for that security. NAPS has run a massive deficit for some
years. NAPS is very hungry indeed for funds. If APS fails to retain RPI increases, as Cliff has explained, NAPS, its members and BA benefit hugely. Now I must stress that this is absolutely no reflection at all on the integrity of the BA appointed trustees. It is the trustee arrangements that are the problem. Should APS trustees who are senior BA managers and beneficiaries and trustees of NAPS have been put in such an impossible position of conflict? In February, APS was reported to be in accounting surplus; NAPS was reported to be in a £1 billion deficit. The day that
I resigned, the BA appointed APS trustees voted against paying RPI or any discretionary increase
at all to APS pensioners. That same day, those very same BA appointed trustees, now acting as
trustees of NAPS, voted in favour of a benefit improvement for NAPS members, from a fund that was in deficit by £1 billion. They were told that this would add £50 million to the already massive
NAPS liabilities. APS was refused payment of RPI; NAPS was granted a benefit improvement by those same trustees. How is that explained? I resigned at the end of the meeting.
The common APS trustee arrangements failed us in the 1980s; they failed us in 1999 when the common trustee board was unable to handle the failed merger conflicts; they are failing the beneficiaries today. Since his appointment as chairman of the trustees in March last year, Paul
Spencer, a professional trustee with a plethora of trustee appointments, has consistently told the trustees that they should follow professional advice. In judging APS elected trustees, he has written, “The most important background for me is the professional advice that they have received and whether they have followed that advice.” However, the regulator’s advice is that you do not always have to follow the advice. You must take advice, but you don’t always have
to follow it. Advisors advise; trustees decide.
When I was still a trustee, I was advised that, since I was a trustee I could not explain my own dissenting position to you at this meeting today. This seemed wrong to me. I have since received my own contradictory and expensive legal advice. My new advice is that I could explain my dissenting position to you today, even if I had remained as an APS trustee.
In his March letter to APS beneficiaries, Paul Spencer wrote about the need for a so-called “underpin”. I won’t go into the details, but the trustees were told right from the start of the debate that an underpin would be required if the trustees decided to retain RPI increases. It coloured the
debate.
Following my resignation, I received somewhat different legal advice, that such an underpin might not be necessary. Over a month ago I asked Paul for his leading counsel’s view on the need for an underpin. He has so far failed to reply, so I assume that Paul’s leading counsel is uncertain.
This is exactly the sort of question that we need testing in court.
In February the APS trustees voted unanimously to take the RPI decision, whatever it is, to the High Court for approval. That was what the trustees decided unanimously. The trustees went to court for approval in 1999. In 1999 they had been unanimous and wrong about the merger. In 2011, the APS trustee board is not unanimous; it is split down the middle. All the more reason therefore to seek the approval of the court, whatever they decide to do, even if it is nothing.
It is the court, not the trustee board, which appoints the necessary representative beneficiaries.
I should like to represent the APS beneficiaries in the court. I am advised that the court will be influenced by the wishes of the beneficiaries.
Paul will no doubt tell you that the cost of going to court is huge. This is rubbish. In January 2000, The High Court Judge commented that the merger hearing costs would be trivial compared to the amount of money in dispute. Similarly, as Cliff has pointed out, in 2011 the hearing costs will be trivial compared to the minimum loss estimate of £270 million at present value cost to our future pensions, but a more realistic estimate of that present value loss to us using government figures is over £400 million.
Shortly after I resigned at the end of March, I initiated a postal ballot of all APS beneficiaries.
The first question asked was, “Do you agree that it is in the best interests of the APS beneficiaries that increases should be hard-wired to RPI?”
The second question relates to the £330 million at 2002 value lost from the fund. “Do you agree that there should be a full and transparent legal review into the governance of the APS trust between 1983 and 2001?”
The third question asks, “Do you agree that Captain Mike Post should be appointed as the APS beneficiaries’ representative beneficiary in any future High Court hearings?”
In an email about arrangements for today, Paul Spencer dismissively asked who it is that I represent. I have striven to represent your interests for the past 12 years.
Please answer Paul’s question with a resounding “Yes” to all three ballot questions.
GRAHAM TOMLIN: I think we can sum up today with three questions and the questions are very simple:
Firstly, does the APS pension scheme have the resources to pay the members RPI?
The overwhelming feeling I get is that it very definitely does. I have no doubt in my mind that it does because our investments have long been designed to return RPI. BA agreed to pay RPI, even after the Chancellor made a statement, so why is it that we are being told that we have to sacrifice our pensions to pay for a deficit? How come? Does anyone here believe that is the right thing to
do when BA is the person that should be paying? They are the ones with a pension contributions holiday. They are the ones that took the money out of the fund. How come we have to pay for it? Does anyone think that’s right?
Secondly why don’t the pension trustees pay us RPI?
Because it needs a two-thirds majority, eight trustees to vote in favour and as Mike has very adequately said, “We couldn’t get it.” We ended up with 6:6 and that doesn’t work. It should be noted that by paying CPI, we lose £270 million of our pension benefit that goes to BA and our IAG shareholders. IAG is a Spanish company. We know Spain needs it because of its own domestic problems, but this is a bit ridiculous. The key to this is that the trustee board did not
accept that the expectation of members to have RPI was sufficiently powerful enough to warrant paying RPI. The fact that we have always had it before wasn’t good enough. And the icing on the
cake was, if that wasn’t insult enough, they just didn’t see that it was anything other than benefit improvement if you got what you got last year. Does anyone believe that by paying RPI this year and having done so for decades before was a benefit improvement? Do you believe that? No.
Only a fool would believe that.
Interestingly, management trustees were happy to agree as Mike says, “a benefit improvement” for NAPS. I have been a pensions trustee three times. I don’t recall us ever in APS getting a benefit improvement, even a discretionary one. Does anyone remember that happening? I can’t remember that happening when I was a trustee and all of a sudden NAPS get one when their pension fund is in a parlous state, far, far worse than ours.
Thirdly, APS was previously in surplus. Where did the money go?
We know where it went, it went to British Airways. I think as far as I am concerned we can’t continue to be funding BA through our pension fund. We’ve had a robbery far too often, for too long over a period of years. It’s got to stop.
So here are the key issues:
• APS is well funded. It can pay us RPI.
• The trustees refuse to accept the beneficiaries’ need to have RPI.
• The money that would have secured RPI for APS has now moved to BA shareholders.
So what do we do now? We take them to court. This is only the start of our campaign. We must encourage all APS beneficiaries to join ABAP. I am proud to say that an increasing number of NAPS beneficiaries are joining ABAP and that is a welcome sign. We must force the trustees to take the decision before a judge Not to Pay RPI. This was previously agreed unanimously by the trustees and Mike Post clearly and concisely put that resolution to the trustee board and it was agreed by every trustee. We must go to court. We need to consider the merits of beginning a class action against British Airways, because, I don’t know about you, but I was always told pension increases were going to be RPI. In Engineering we were always told that. I believe that’s classic pension mis-selling. Anthony Arter has accepted that. Where there is a contract involved, it’s far more powerful than where there isn’t and we had a contract, a contract of employment between us and the employer. We could not join a pension fund when I joined BA. We had to join a pension fund and we had to join APS.
That being the case, they mis-sold our pension. We are not getting RPI. They promised us RPI when I joined. We need to work to reshape the trustee board. It is not appropriate. We have a built -in majority against our ability to get two-thirds majority for a decision. It cannot be right, it cannot be just. We have got to change that and I believe we need an independent chairman. Paul Spencer can profess to be an independent chairman. He is still not being paid for by the pension fund, he is still being paid for by BA.
He who pays the piper...
…
Then followed a spirited but time limited question & answer session under the chairman of the meeting Capt Mike Palmer. The most significant information that was released was that the Police Federation & the Civil
Service Union are going to the High Court to establish in law if the CPI is an appropriate index for cost of living increases for pensions.
BA Pensions are awaiting this verdict. But meanwhile the Trustees have implemented our pensions increase with CPI before any confirmation that the CPI is in fact appropriate as a cost of living
index. This was roundly condemned by the Beneficiaries who rightly see no reason why RPI as an appropriate index was removed in haste. This action does not seem to place the Trustees as looking after the Pensioners first and the Scheme second in their order of duties.
The Chairman of the Meeting then proposed the Resolution of the Meeting as follows:
“ This Meeting demands that the APS Trustees retain a funding target sufficient to pay RPI pension increases. Further it demands that the APS Trustees restore RPI pension increases back dated to April 2011. Thus meeting Members expectations and also a version of this resolution be put to all APS beneficiaries by postal ballot within 35 days.
The wording of such ballot to be decided by Cliff Pocock, Mike Post & Graham Tomlin.”
The Vote in support of the Resolution was :
Against : None.
For : Unanimous.
Abstentions : None.
Exactly the same Vote was recorded at both sessions at Ascot.
Making a total vote supporting the Resolution as 2500 beneficiaries.
2. NAPS Beneficiaries Meeting September 13th 2011 Update.
At the last ABAP committee meeting it appeared most likely that the experience gained from the Ascot meeting of 11th July would be used as a frame work for the forthcoming NAPS beneficiaries meeting scheduled for 13th September. Ian Rycraft a NAPS Trustee is already liaising with ABAP to get a smooth operation. There will be more progress to report after the next ABAP committee meeting.
3. BA Widows & Widowers Vote at Pensioner Trustee Election: Request
The current Member Nominated Pensioner Trustee Election for 3 Trustees has again caused a strong reaction from ladies & gentlemen in this situation. Every time there is a Pensioner election ABAP receives complaints about their callous & undemocratic treatment in this matter by the Trustees.
On this occasion ABAP has even been blamed for missing you out.
As we know the matter is due for discussion by the Trustees at their next meeting in late August.
Self Help is called for to push this forward.
ABAP requests that all those affected who wish to have a say in who is looking after their BA pension should write at once requesting 21st Century Treatment of this Issue to:
Paul Spencer CBE
Chairman of Trustees
British Airways Pensions
Whitelocke House
2/4 Lampton Road
Hounslow
Middx
TW3 1HU
PLEASE ALSO SEND A COPY OF YOUR LETTER TO “ABAP21”
UNIT 10
SOLENT INDUSTRIAL ESTATE
HEDGE END
SOUTHAMPTON SO30 2FX
OR email daynemarkham@hotmail.com
So that ABAP can keep up with what is (or is not) happening.
4. RPI Fighting Fund: Update
The 1st August is the rapidly approaching deadline for activating Standing Orders & other methods of donating to the RPI Fighting Fund. It is not yet cut & dried that the CPI/RPI issue will go to the High Court, but following the Ascot Meetings the chances have certainly not decreased and there are steadily increasing CPI/RPI expenses.
Therefore ABAP is requesting that all beneficiaries should make their Fighting Fund Pledges to be activated as soon as is convenient to them. We urge those who are thinking about donating to act now.
Should there be a breakthrough settlement ABAP will inform asap everyone by NEWSFLASH when to stop all payment arrangements.