I am enclosing a paper which I have written explaining the background to this matter. It affects many other overseas pensioners and there is no appeal through which this grievance can be heard. This case is a classic example of civil servants losing sight of the government's policy objectives and a reluctance to admit that mistakes have been made. The mistake in the regulations, whereby my Hong Kong basic pension is converted to sterling each month at the 1987 exchange rate instead of the current rate, has some absurd consequences. For example, by insisting on supplementing only the increases paid by the Hong Kong Government and not the basic pension itself, the ODA reduces my supplement because inflation (and the pension increase) is higher in Hong Kong than in the UK, so that prior to September 1992 my aggregated pensions fell below my official entitlement. On the other hand, if inflation (and the pension increase) is lower in Hong Kong than in the UK, the ODA would supplement my pensions to the full extent of my official entitlement. Thus, Hong Kong pensioners have a vested interest in the failure of the British Government's anti-inflationary policy.
In the volume of correspondence I have had with the ODA, which I can send to you if you wish, they have failed to explain the various contradictions in their policies and statements and have declined to provide me with all the information that I believe I am entitled to under the Citizen's Charter.
I should be grateful if you would look into this matter to see whether the ODA can be made to amend their regulations to bring them into line with the original intentions of the Act and give me, and other overseas pensioners, a fair deal.
Yours sincerely
s. Blacke
R B Blanche MBE
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.