And we\’re not being told the half of it.
Hundreds of homeless people with mental illness, addiction and debt problems are being left to cope without vital support services after a leading charity was forced into insolvency by its pensions liabilities.
We get told about all those being left without services: a tragic tale indeed. What we don\’t really get told is what actually happened about the pensions.
Experts said charities at high risk of going bust included those dependent on public funding, or which have inherited expensive pensions liabilities after taking over the running of public sector services, including social care, leisure centre facilities, housing and academy schools.
Does anyone know what this really means?
But after a write-down in the value of its assets, it found itself with a £17m pension liability. It presented a solution to the Pensions Trust, which operated its pension scheme, that it said would have allowed it to meet its obligations while continuing as a going concern, but this was rejected, pushing it into administration.
There\’s a much bigger financial story behind this I\’m sure. Why is it that a charity is facing such huge pensions liabilities?
A number of possibilities occur off the top of my head.
1) They were promising themselves too high a pension all along.
2) By taking on staff \”outsourced\” from the public sector they had to take on public sector pension liabilities.
3) Brown\’s rules in how pensions must be accounted for have made previously viable promises unviable.
I have a feeling, reading between the lines, that it was 2. But that in itself is an interesting story: for it rather calls into question those public sector pensions themselves, doesn\’t it?
So, anyone know more detail?