Re: Is there a legal compulsion to possess any single document ?

[Roland Perry]

In message <pbcugf$n81$7...@dont-email.me>, at 14:46:39 on Fri, 20 Apr
2018, Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> remarked:
>Following on from something I just typed in response to the landing cards
>thread, I found myself idly wondering if there is any requirement in UK
>law for a citizen to *possess* (as in have to hand for inspection by the
>appropriate authorities) any specific document(s) ????
>
>Presumably a parent could be required to retain their childs birth
>certificate (are they ?). But once the child reaches 18, would such a
>requirement be passed onto the (now adult) child ?

I don't think that if you are a hermit there's any need for citizens to
have any documents.

To participate in many aspects of the modern economy (including
employment on-the-books, opening a bank account, changing GP, etc), you
do.
--
Roland Perry

[Yellow]

On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 14:46:39 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
<jeth...@hotmailbin.com> posted:

>
> Following on from something I just typed in response to the landing cards
> thread, I found myself idly wondering if there is any requirement in UK
> law for a citizen to *possess* (as in have to hand for inspection by the
> appropriate authorities) any specific document(s) ????

No.

And you have just put your finger on why the previously proposed ID
cards would have changed our relationship with the state.

>
> Presumably a parent could be required to retain their childs birth
> certificate (are they ?). But once the child reaches 18, would such a
> requirement be passed onto the (now adult) child ?

Birth certificates can be replaced so I don't see why there would be
such a requirement.

[Roland Perry]

In message <MPG.35446d78b...@News.Individual.NET>, at 22:35:25
on Fri, 20 Apr 2018, Yellow <no...@none.com.invalid> remarked:

>> Presumably a parent could be required to retain their childs birth
>> certificate (are they ?). But once the child reaches 18, would such a
>> requirement be passed onto the (now adult) child ?
>
>Birth certificates can be replaced so I don't see why there would be
>such a requirement.

Because despite "not being proof of ID" (just as a Windrush landing card
isn't, either) a birth certificate, especially an originally issued one,
gets a certain number of totting-up points in the fuzzy process of
deciding if someone is who they claim to be.

A call centre asked me to prove my ID yesterday, and asked me for my
home phone number. (I'll park the issue that as I was calling from that,
it should have been on the CLI display in front of them.)

And I fluffed it. Not because I'm an imposter, but because I rarely call
the number, and on the very few times I do, I use the entry stored
within my mobile phone. There's no memorable pattern to it, which
doesn't help. For example I used to have a portable phone number 07010
701025, which was more memorable as 0701 0701 025.

Yet being able to answer this shared not-very-secret correctly, gets
some totting-up points which they are apparently satisfied with.
--
Roland Perry

[Martin Brown]

On 20/04/2018 15:46, Jethro_uk wrote:

> Following on from something I just typed in response to the landing cards
> thread, I found myself idly wondering if there is any requirement in UK
> law for a citizen to *possess* (as in have to hand for inspection by the
> appropriate authorities) any specific document(s) ????

I don't think so but not having any paper documentation will make
opening a bank account, employment or using the NHS rather difficult.

>
> Presumably a parent could be required to retain their childs birth
> certificate (are they ?). But once the child reaches 18, would such a
> requirement be passed onto the (now adult) child ?

I don't think they are compelled to keep the document, but they are
required to register births, marriages and deaths in a timely manner.
(actually what is the penalty for failure to do so?)

If you have done it do you need to be able to prove for example change
of name by deed poll to the authorities?

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Flop]

On 21/04/2018 09:10, Martin Brown wrote:
> I don't think they are compelled to keep the document, but they are
> required to register births, marriages and deaths in a timely manner.
> (actually what is the penalty for failure to do so?)

So, is a criminal record proof [of something]?


--

Flop

“I needed a password eight characters long so I picked Snow White and
the Seven Dwarves.”

[R. Mark Clayton]

Some things require one from around the time of birth (DBS IIRC), so a more recent duplicate won't do.

[the Omrud]

DBS does require a birth certificate issued in the first year of your
life, but only if you need to rely on a birth certificate. Most people
provide passport, driving licence and utility bills.

There surely cannot be a situation where an early-dated birth
certificate is mandatory, with no possibly alternative?

--
David

[Roland Perry]

In message <c25a1fd3-0a8b-48a3...@googlegroups.com>, at
03:48:36 on Sat, 21 Apr 2018, R. Mark Clayton <notya...@gmail.com>
remarked:

>> Birth certificates can be replaced so I don't see why there would be
>> such a requirement.
>
>Some things require one from around the time of birth (DBS IIRC), so a more recent duplicate won't do.

True, but it's only one of five choices from "Group 1" when choosing
"Route 1". A later Birth Certificate is something acceptable under
"Route 3".

Fuzzy, isn't it?
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <pbfhfu$b9t$1...@dont-email.me>, at 15:22:53 on Sat, 21 Apr
2018, the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com> remarked:

>>> Birth certificates can be replaced so I don't see why there would be
>>> such a requirement.
>> Some things require one from around the time of birth (DBS IIRC), so
>>a more recent duplicate won't do.
>
>DBS does require a birth certificate issued in the first year of your
>life, but only if you need to rely on a birth certificate. Most people
>provide passport, driving licence and utility bills.
>
>There surely cannot be a situation where an early-dated birth
>certificate is mandatory, with no possibly alternative?

Only if otherwise you fail both "Route 2" and "Route 3" and have none of
the other four "Group 1" documents.
--
Roland Perry

[Janet]

In article <c25a1fd3-0a8b-48a3...@googlegroups.com>,
notya...@gmail.com says...

>
> On Friday, 20 April 2018 22:35:14 UTC+1, Yellow wrote:
> > On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 14:46:39 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
> > <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> posted:
> > >
> > > Following on from something I just typed in response to the landing cards
> > > thread, I found myself idly wondering if there is any requirement in UK
> > > law for a citizen to *possess* (as in have to hand for inspection by the
> > > appropriate authorities) any specific document(s) ????
> >
> > No.
> >
> > And you have just put your finger on why the previously proposed ID
> > cards would have changed our relationship with the state.
> >
> > >
> > > Presumably a parent could be required to retain their childs birth
> > > certificate (are they ?).

A copy of the BC is required when registering a child for school,
applying for a child's passport, if the teenage child wishes to apply to
join the armed services, apply for a driving license or get married.

But once the child reaches 18, would such a
> > > requirement be passed onto the (now adult) child ?

If the 18+ person wants to join the armed forces, apply for a drivers
license, get married or obtain a first passport they will require their
BC. If they don't have the original they can obtain a copy for a small
fee.

You also require a deceased person's BC in order to register their
death.



Janet.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[Robin]

On 21/04/2018 15:53, Janet wrote:

>
> You also require a deceased person's BC in order to register their
> death.
>

In E&W the deceased's BC is desirable but not essential.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

[the Omrud]

On 21/04/2018 15:53, Janet wrote:

> You also require a deceased person's BC in order to register their
> death.

I'm sure I didn't present Dad's birth certificate when registering his
death.

--
David

[Janet]

In article <pbfn1t$bqj$1...@dont-email.me>, usenet...@gmail.com says...

My error. On checking I see it's not essential.

When a neighbour died I phoned the registrar to make an appointment and
BC was on the list of paperwork she asked me to bring for "tell us
once".

[Roland Perry]

In message <MPG.354560b96...@news.individual.net>, at 15:53:22
on Sat, 21 Apr 2018, Janet <nob...@home.com> remarked:

>You also require a deceased person's BC in order to register their
>death.

That's a monkey on a next-of-kin's back that I was previously unaware
of. What if the executors can't find it, or decline to find it, or it
simply doesn't exist, in the timespan required to register a death?
--
Roland Perry

[Yellow]

On Sat, 21 Apr 2018 16:57:48 +0100, the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com>
posted:

Me neither, nor when I registered my husband's death.

[spuorg...@gowanhill.com]

On Friday, 20 April 2018 16:46:39 UTC+1, Roland Perry wrote:
> I don't think that if you are a hermit there's any need for citizens to
> have any documents.
> To participate in many aspects of the modern economy (including
> employment on-the-books, opening a bank account, changing GP, etc), you
> do.

If you travel by bus I think you have to keep your ticket for the duration of the journey and give it up to an Inspector on demand, but that might just be a condition of carriage rather than having the force of law.

Police officers are obliged to produce a warrant card in certain circumstances.

I can't think of any circumstances where something has to be physically possessed, by law, rather than being a requirement of an occupation or similar (eg a taxi driver having his/her badge on) or something that can be produced later (eg car insurance details).

Owain

[Roland Perry]

In message <78c59440-5092-49ec...@googlegroups.com>, at
14:49:47 on Sat, 21 Apr 2018, spuorg...@gowanhill.com remarked:

>On Friday, 20 April 2018 16:46:39 UTC+1, Roland Perry wrote:

>> I don't think that if you are a hermit there's any need for citizens to
>> have any documents.
>
>> To participate in many aspects of the modern economy (including
>> employment on-the-books, opening a bank account, changing GP, etc), you
>> do.
>
>If you travel by bus I think you have to keep your ticket for the
>duration of the journey and give it up to an Inspector on demand, but
>that might just be a condition of carriage rather than having the force
>of law.

Same condition on trains is a matter for the Railway Byelaws.

>Police officers are obliged to produce a warrant card in certain circumstances.
>
>I can't think of any circumstances where something has to be physically
>possessed, by law, rather than being a requirement of an occupation or
>similar (eg a taxi driver having his/her badge on) or something that
>can be produced later (eg car insurance details).

All the occupational examples require someone to *have* documents at the
point they are hired. You appear to have mission-crept to *carrying*
documents on the job. To add to your list: accredited bouncers by law,
and many public-facing council employees by conditions of employment;
and don't policemen in uniform still wear a number - which is almost as
much an identifier as a warrant card.

As for the world of commerce - I'm a bit of a transport ticketing geek
and while I can buy anonymous tickets at full price for cash, I need to
carry a *photo* ID card if benefiting from:

National Rail season tickets
Concessionary bus-pass
Many railcards (but not a photo on the senior one)
Several smart-ticketing cards (Scotrail ITSO and Nottingham Bus prepaid
PAYG are two I have).

Then of course you've got the "Challenge 25" in shops/bars, spreading
inexorably to DIY shops and so on.
--
Roland Perry

[Brian Reay]

As ID etc, Birth Certificates are useless. You can obtain someone
else's, quite legally (eg for family history research). Of course,
people can, and I'm sure do, obtain them for 'other' reasons. They
certainly don't prove the person who 'presents' one is the person it
refers to.

[Roland Perry]

In message <pbge5k$cvu$1...@dont-email.me>, at 23:32:19 on Sat, 21 Apr
2018, Brian Reay <no...@m.com> remarked:

>>> Presumably a parent could be required to retain their childs birth
>>> certificate (are they ?). But once the child reaches 18, would such a
>>> requirement be passed onto the (now adult) child ?

>> Birth certificates can be replaced so I don't see why there would be
>> such a requirement.
>
>As ID etc, Birth Certificates are useless.

In isolation they are weak evidence, although one issued soon after
birth is stronger. Overall, they are a part of a basket of evidence
which needs to be "totted up" to some target depending on the particular
requirement.

Then of course there's the "long" and "short" versions, the latter
having fallen into somewhat disuse.

>You can obtain someone else's, quite legally (eg for family history
>research). Of course, people can, and I'm sure do, obtain them for
>'other' reasons. They certainly don't prove the person who 'presents'
>one is the person it refers to.

It would certainly help if there was a different word for a recently
obtained birth certificate [administrative replica?], which I agree
doesn't so much prove who the bearer is, rather than that "a person"
with those credentials was once born.

However, if you were a child of (say) a Windrush, it might be helpful in
tying you to your parent by matching the Father/Mother name on *your*
birth certificate to the details on even such an administrative replica
of the parents' birth certificate. (Issued in the Caribbean in that
case, of course).
--
Roland Perry

[R. Mark Clayton]

On Saturday, 21 April 2018 16:21:24 UTC+1, Robin wrote:
> On 21/04/2018 15:53, Janet wrote:
>
> >
> > You also require a deceased person's BC in order to register their
> > death.
> >
>
>
> In E&W the deceased's BC is desirable but not essential.

Indeed - registered two deaths without a BC, however you do need the medical certificate from a doctor if the deceased was receiving medical care and died naturally.

[Brian Reay]

All you need is a certificate of someone about your age, ideally who has
died. Then you can 'become' them. This was exposed some years back in
relation to under cover police officers using the names of dead children.

As part of family tree research, I've obtained several BC's - sometimes
I was asked why but not always. As it happens the people were dead* but
this was never asked nor was it obvious there was a family link-
different names, area etc.


*but could, in some cases, still have been alive- if rather old !

[the Omrud]

On 22/04/2018 09:04, Brian Reay wrote:

> All you need is a certificate of someone about your age, ideally who has
> died.   Then you can 'become' them.  This was exposed some years back in
> relation to under cover police officers using the names of dead children.
>
> As part of family tree research, I've obtained several BC's - sometimes
> I was asked why but not always. As it happens the people were dead* but
> this was never asked nor was it obvious there was a family link-
> different names, area etc.

As you can request copies online, there's no mechanism for anybody to
query your motives. Presumably there's a statutory duty for the
relevant body to supply certificates (birth, marriage, death) on request
and with payment.

--
David

[Roland Perry]

In message <pbhfn1$jlr$4...@dont-email.me>, at 09:04:49 on Sun, 22 Apr

2018, Brian Reay <no...@m.com> remarked:

>>> You can obtain someone else's, quite legally (eg for family history
>>>research).  Of course, people can, and I'm sure do, obtain them for
>>>'other' reasons. They certainly don't prove the person who 'presents'
>>>one is the person it refers to.
>> It would certainly help if there was a different word for a recently
>>obtained birth certificate [administrative replica?], which I agree
>>doesn't so much prove who the bearer is, rather than that "a person"
>>with those credentials was once born.
>> However, if you were a child of (say) a Windrush, it might be
>>helpful in tying you to your parent by matching the Father/Mother
>>name on *your* birth certificate to the details on even such an
>>administrative replica of the parents' birth certificate. (Issued in
>>the Caribbean in that case, of course).
>
>All you need is a certificate of someone about your age, ideally who
>has died. Then you can 'become' them. This was exposed some years
>back in relation to under cover police officers using the names of dead
>children.

Only if the organisation doing the checking is vastly less thorough than
the immigration people.
--
Roland Perry

[Robert]

On 22/04/2018 16:15, Jethro_uk wrote:

> On Sun, 22 Apr 2018 15:08:37 +0100, the Omrud wrote:
>
>> On 22/04/2018 09:04, Brian Reay wrote:
>>

>>> [quoted text muted]

>>
>> As you can request copies online, there's no mechanism for anybody to
>> query your motives.
>

> I may be wrong, but it seems number plates have more security around
> them ?
>
Not in my experience of getting plates for a trailer from local garage !
Officially there is .

[Robert]

And of course if you are likely to have your immigration status
challenged then a lack of documentation might be "awkward".

[spuorg...@gowanhill.com]

On Sunday, 22 April 2018 22:35:30 UTC+1, Robert wrote:
> And of course if you are likely to have your immigration status
> challenged then a lack of documentation might be "awkward".

On the other hand, if there's no proof of where you're from, you can't be deported back there.

Owain

[Roland Perry]

In message <fk4dgt...@mid.individual.net>, at 22:35:25 on Sun, 22
Apr 2018, Robert <rob...@invalid.invalid> remarked:

I'm trying to imagine the situation (in the context of the list of
balkanised ID cards above) when such a 'challenge' would arise.

On issuing, obviously, but having successfully got one??
--
Roland Perry

[Ian Jackson]

In article <995b0e53-9cd0-4de0...@googlegroups.com>,

On the contrary, the HO will deport you to whereever they imagine you
are from. The fact that _they_ don't have proof won't matter. It's
_you_ that needs _proof_.

--
Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.

[Ian Jackson]

In article <pbkjc2$cb1$2...@dont-email.me>,
Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 12:20:54 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> On the contrary, the HO will deport you to whereever they imagine you
>> are from.
>

>And if the destination country says "no" ?

Apparently not enough of them having been doing so. And even if they
do, you still end up homeless, forbidden to work, and destitute.

[Pelican]

On 23/04/2018 22:25, Jethro_uk wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 12:20:54 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
>

>> In article <995b0e53-9cd0-4de0...@googlegroups.com>,
>> <spuorg...@gowanhill.com> wrote:

>>> [quoted text muted]

>>
>> On the contrary, the HO will deport you to whereever they imagine you
>> are from.
>

> And if the destination country says "no" ?

If.

[Adam Funk]

On 2018-04-23, Jethro_uk wrote:

> On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 12:20:54 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
>

>> In article <995b0e53-9cd0-4de0...@googlegroups.com>,
>> <spuorg...@gowanhill.com> wrote:

>>> [quoted text muted]

>>
>> On the contrary, the HO will deport you to whereever they imagine you
>> are from.
>

> And if the destination country says "no" ?

Why would the deporting country care? We are talking about people who
are inherently disenfranchised & therefore especially suitable to be
kicked around for political gain.

[Adam Funk]

On 2018-04-24, Jethro_uk wrote:

> I think you miss the point I was making ?
>
> Suppose the UK decides that "Mr X" is to be deported, as he is clearly
> not allowed to legally reside in the UK. A decision that is made because
> Mr.X possess no documents whatsoever.
>
> The Home Office consult their "nationality color chart" (available from
> Amazon) and decide the closest skin tone match is Nigeria.
>
> They load Mr X onto a plane bound for Nigeria.
>
> However, when MrX gets off the plane at Lagos, *Nigerian* immigration
> officials declare that he is not Nigerian and therefore has no right of
> entry or abode, and put him on the return flight to the UK.
>
> ... is the situation I was envisaging.

I guess he will get bounced around until he dies or someone lets him
out of an airport.

Typically, a large segment of the press will collaborate with the
politicians in labelling him an "undesirable".

Occasionally, this sort of thing backfires --- the politicians weren't
expecting so much public support for the Windrush generation.

[rmla...@gmail.com]

On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 10:35:14 PM UTC+1, Yellow wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 14:46:39 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
> <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> posted:
> >
> > Following on from something I just typed in response to the landing cards
> > thread, I found myself idly wondering if there is any requirement in UK
> > law for a citizen to *possess* (as in have to hand for inspection by the
> > appropriate authorities) any specific document(s) ????
>
> No.
>
> And you have just put your finger on why the previously proposed ID
> cards would have changed our relationship with the state.

I think it's deep in the British psyche, although I am not sure why: we don't like the idea of an agent of the state (including a police officer) being able to demand "your papers sir, if you please".

Maybe it's connected to the structure of our government which is there 'by permission'. It's also why we (I here project my personal views onto the whole of British society, sorry about that) distrust any draft constitution that begins "You have the right to do X, the right to do Y etc etc." because our unwritten one says, in effect, "you can do whatever you want except where parliament has decided to limit you".

Robert


Robert

[Wm]

On 25/04/2018 10:52, Adam Funk wrote:

> Typically, a large segment of the press will collaborate with the
> politicians in labelling him an "undesirable".
>
> Occasionally, this sort of thing backfires --- the politicians weren't
> expecting so much public support for the Windrush generation.
>

Never mind the fact that the Windrush folks were invited in the first
place and are now part of the public the politicians weren't expecting
to notice.

--
Wm

[Adam Funk]

I assume that since the people who don't have "papers" have never been
on the electoral roll. Immigrants are an easy target for politicians
precisely because they are disenfranchised.

[Graeme]

In message <1r2jrex...@news.ducksburg.com>, Adam Funk
<a24...@ducksburg.com> writes

>
>I assume that since the people who don't have "papers" have never been
>on the electoral roll. Immigrants are an easy target for politicians
>precisely because they are disenfranchised.

Surely, though, there must be a paper trail for people who were either
born here, or arrived as young children? Perhaps they have chosen not
to be on the electoral roll, but even so, there must be records with
doctors, NHS, schools etc. Have these people never been ill, never
worked, never received any form of benefit, never been allocated a tax
code or NI number? Never lived in council property? Never owned or
insured a vehicle, licensed a dog or TV, never had a Post Office or any
other type of account?

Granted, none of the above would be proof of a right to be in the UK,
but there must be enough paper somewhere, a paper trail, to establish a
strong case?

--
Graeme

[Roland Perry]

In message <1r2jrex...@news.ducksburg.com>, at 10:05:05 on Mon, 30
Apr 2018, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> remarked:

>On 2018-04-30, Wm wrote:
>
>> On 25/04/2018 10:52, Adam Funk wrote:
>>
>>> Typically, a large segment of the press will collaborate with the
>>> politicians in labelling him an "undesirable".
>>>
>>> Occasionally, this sort of thing backfires --- the politicians weren't
>>> expecting so much public support for the Windrush generation.
>>>
>>
>> Never mind the fact that the Windrush folks were invited in the first
>> place and are now part of the public the politicians weren't expecting
>> to notice.
>
>I assume that since the people who don't have "papers" have never been
>on the electoral roll.

You don't need ID to get on the electoral roll, nor I think to be issued
with an NI number back then.

>Immigrants are an easy target for politicians precisely because they
>are disenfranchised.

The only thing "disenfranchising" them (and that's from staying here,
not voting) in this current situation is the lack of sufficient evidence
to support in effect an application for UK Naturalisation.

What might have solved this, long ago, would be a scheme to give an
amnesty to those without documents, but prepared to register
'properly'[1] for the first time, and then go back (say) five years
later to have it formalised.

Plenty of EU nationals wishing to stay after Brexit are likely to be in
the same boat.

[1] One of the examples given in the press is a chap who "arrived on his
brother's passport" (I assume, by being included on that passport,
rather than impersonating him).
--
Roland Perry

[Wm]

On 29/04/2018 15:33, rmla...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 10:35:14 PM UTC+1, Yellow wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 14:46:39 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
>> <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> posted:
>>>
>>> Following on from something I just typed in response to the landing cards
>>> thread, I found myself idly wondering if there is any requirement in UK
>>> law for a citizen to *possess* (as in have to hand for inspection by the
>>> appropriate authorities) any specific document(s) ????
>>
>> No.
>>
>> And you have just put your finger on why the previously proposed ID
>> cards would have changed our relationship with the state.
>
>
> I think it's deep in the British psyche, although I am not sure why: we don't like the idea of an agent of the state (including a police officer) being able to demand "your papers sir, if you please".
>

As a person born in a country where that could be asked, I think it
would be preferable if people that were or are allowed to be here could
ask for a card.

To show at an electoral polling station, for example.

The unacceptable bit is you need a card but we won't give you one, nah,
nah, silly foreigners *and* people not likely to vote for me even if you
really are a Brit hah fucking hah.

I'm with the Electoral Reform Society in general on this point as it
appears I'm a good person because I have a bank card <-- how fucking
stupid is that ?

> Maybe it's connected to the structure of our government which is there 'by permission'. It's also why we (I here project my personal views onto the whole of British society, sorry about that)

cute disclaimer

> distrust any draft constitution that begins "You have the right to do X, the right to do Y etc etc." because our unwritten one says, in effect, "you can do whatever you want except where parliament has decided to limit you".
>

So, is everyone allowed to vote in the council elections or not?

I am certain some people (not many but that is how things work) won't be
able to vote in local elections.

They'll be minority people that neither of the main two parties wanted
to vote for them anyway.

--
Wm

[Roland Perry]

In message <pc6psf$klg$1...@dont-email.me>, at 11:07:08 on Mon, 30 Apr
2018, Wm <wm_o...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:

>I am certain some people (not many but that is how things work) won't
>be able to vote in local elections.

There are some slightly different rules about who can vote in local vs
general elections, but do they apply in the scenario under discussion?
--
Roland Perry

[Adam Funk]

On 2018-04-30, Roland Perry wrote:

> In message <1r2jrex...@news.ducksburg.com>, at 10:05:05 on Mon, 30
> Apr 2018, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> remarked:
>>On 2018-04-30, Wm wrote:
>>
>>> On 25/04/2018 10:52, Adam Funk wrote:
>>>
>>>> Typically, a large segment of the press will collaborate with the
>>>> politicians in labelling him an "undesirable".
>>>>
>>>> Occasionally, this sort of thing backfires --- the politicians weren't
>>>> expecting so much public support for the Windrush generation.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Never mind the fact that the Windrush folks were invited in the first
>>> place and are now part of the public the politicians weren't expecting
>>> to notice.
>>
>>I assume that since the people who don't have "papers" have never been
>>on the electoral roll.

(Delete that "since", a vestige of bad editing.)

> You don't need ID to get on the electoral roll, nor I think to be issued
> with an NI number back then.

What I meant was that any Windrush people who had registered to vote
20 years ago (for example) would have already jumped through the hoops
and their situation would have been "regularized" already (as the
French would say).

>>Immigrants are an easy target for politicians precisely because they
>>are disenfranchised.

In the usual sense of "disenfranchised", i.e., not being allowed to
vote.

> The only thing "disenfranchising" them (and that's from staying here,
> not voting) in this current situation is the lack of sufficient evidence
> to support in effect an application for UK Naturalisation.
>
> What might have solved this, long ago, would be a scheme to give an
> amnesty to those without documents, but prepared to register
> 'properly'[1] for the first time, and then go back (say) five years
> later to have it formalised.

True.

[Mark Goodge]

On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 13:47:42 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

EU citizens may vote in local elections anywhere in the EU that they
are resident, but may only vote in national elections in their country
of nationality[1]. So, for example, Poles in the UK can vote in
council elections but not a general election. That distinction doesn't
affect the Windrush generation as they are British nationals for
electoral purposes.

[1] It's actually more complicated than that (of course), but the
complexities aren't really relevant here.

Mark

[Roland Perry]

In message <7pgjrex...@news.ducksburg.com>, at 14:03:03 on Mon, 30

Apr 2018, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> remarked:

>> You don't need ID to get on the electoral roll, nor I think to be issued
>> with an NI number back then.
>
>What I meant was that any Windrush people who had registered to vote
>20 years ago (for example) would have already jumped through the hoops
>and their situation would have been "regularized" already (as the
>French would say).

What hoops were those, other than persuading a householder to list you
on the form from the electoral registration people?
--
Roland Perry

[Chris R]

I was shocked to learn yesterday about the level of fees charged to
those who want to go through settled status to citizenship. It can cost
£10,000 per person (so £40,000 for a family of four) in Home Office
fees. No wonder people do not always rush to get their status recorded
and upgraded at the first opportunity.
--
Chris R

[Ian Jackson]

In article <pc7glg$at$1...@dont-email.me>,

Chris R <invalid...@invalid.invalid.com> wrote:
>I was shocked to learn yesterday about the level of fees charged to
>those who want to go through settled status to citizenship. It can cost
>£10,000 per person (so £40,000 for a family of four) in Home Office
>fees. No wonder people do not always rush to get their status recorded
>and upgraded at the first opportunity.

That's, of course, if you don't get it bounced the first few times by
the HO because your photocopy of your P45 from 1876 was not in colour
or whatever.

[Adam Funk]

It's a pretty clear case of shafting people because they can't do
anything about it.

[Graeme]

In message <pc6rc7$qtr$3...@dont-email.me>, Jethro_uk
<jeth...@hotmailbin.com> writes

>On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 10:28:35 +0100, Graeme wrote:
>>
>> Granted, none of the above would be proof of a right to be in the UK,
>> but there must be enough paper somewhere, a paper trail, to establish a
>> strong case?
>

>I doubt there are any extant (and codified) such records for myself, and
>I am a couple of decades younger than the children who came to the UK in
>the late 1940s.

I thought than until my primary school managed to contact me, more than
40 years after I had left the school.

I know some people are minimalist, but surely most people hang on to
some paper? Old driving licenses, passports, tax records, NI numbers,
school reports, exam certificates?
--
Graeme

[Graeme]

In message <pc9vho$pgk$3...@dont-email.me>, Jethro_uk
<jeth...@hotmailbin.com> writes
>
>I keep *everything*. Which according to the Inland Revenue circa 1993
>only fraudsters do. They were very annoyed that I was able to send them
>bank statements back to 1982 which I had kept (and still have).

<smile> I have had a few clear outs, but certainly have every statement
from when I changed banks in 2002, and all my correspondence with HMRC,
back to holiday jobs in the 60s. Not to mention my first red driving
licence. NSI bond from the 50s, and a savings account pass book. Petrol
coupons from the 70s. Every hard drive from every PC I have owned. All
sorts of junk I will probably never use or need, and will probably go in
a skip immediately after my demise.

Getting back to the subject, I still find it hard to believe that there
are people living in the UK who have not a scrap of paper to prove
identity etc.
--
Graeme

[Chris R]

On 01/05/2018 16:02, Jethro_uk wrote:

> On Tue, 01 May 2018 14:04:28 +0100, Graeme wrote:
>
>> In message <pc6rc7$qtr$3...@dont-email.me>, Jethro_uk
>> <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> writes
>>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 10:28:35 +0100, Graeme wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Granted, none of the above would be proof of a right to be in the UK,
>>>> but there must be enough paper somewhere, a paper trail, to establish
>>>> a strong case?
>>>
>>> I doubt there are any extant (and codified) such records for myself, and
>>> I am a couple of decades younger than the children who came to the UK in
>>> the late 1940s.
>>

>> I know some people are minimalist, but surely most people hang on to
>> some paper? Old driving licenses, passports, tax records, NI numbers,
>> school reports, exam certificates?
>

> Ah, that's the mirror flip ....

>
> I keep *everything*. Which according to the Inland Revenue circa 1993
> only fraudsters do. They were very annoyed that I was able to send them
> bank statements back to 1982 which I had kept (and still have).
>

> On the basis my Dad and Brother still live in the house I grew up in from
> age 4 and are just as retentive, I suspect anything I haven't here, will
> be there.
>
The more disadvantaged you are in society, the less likely you are to
keep records. If you have only a small space and have to keep moving, a
filing cabinet is likely be a low priority.

Government is not joined up, so the fact that you may have registered
with a dentist or paid council tax is not going to be accessible to the
Home Office, and they won't go looking (unless they are trying to prove
fraud!).
--
Chris R

[Roland Perry]

In message <4cK+6p1$QK6a...@binnsroad.myzen.co.uk>, at 18:30:39 on Tue,
1 May 2018, Graeme <Gra...@binnsroad.net> remarked:

>Getting back to the subject, I still find it hard to believe that there
>are people living in the UK who have not a scrap of

Acceptable, there's the rub.

>paper to prove identity etc.

--

Roland Perry

[Robin]

While there is a lot in that, there is one bit of government that does
try really hard to keep records back to the 40s: the National Insurance
office in Newcastle which is now part of HMRC. Their records are
certainly not infallible but for the great majority of people[1] they
have a pretty accurate record of periods of employment when NI were
paid, of unemployment when benefits, and latterly of credits for caring
for children etc. I am puzzled as to how so many men of the Windrush
generation who came here to work seem to have slipped through that net.
And anyone can get for free from HMRC their NI record simply by asking.

[1] I am sure readers will know of or be able to find examples of
information that cannot be found. But that's a tiny proportion. And I
can't see why the Windrush generation should be exceptionally poorly
recorded.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

[Tim Woodall]

On 2018-05-01, Graeme <Gra...@binnsroad.net> wrote:
>
> Getting back to the subject, I still find it hard to believe that there
> are people living in the UK who have not a scrap of paper to prove
> identity etc.

This is getting harder and harder. I wish banks, council, water,
utilities etc would provide electronically signed copies of their bills
that solicitors would accept.

[Roland Perry]

In message <slrnpeimo1....@einstein.home.woodall.me.uk>, at
06:30:25 on Wed, 2 May 2018, Tim Woodall <new...@woodall.me.uk>
remarked:

>> Getting back to the subject, I still find it hard to believe that there
>> are people living in the UK who have not a scrap of paper to prove
>> identity etc.
>
>This is getting harder and harder. I wish banks, council, water,
>utilities etc would provide electronically signed copies of their bills
>that solicitors would accept.

Solicitors[1] are still very wary of electronic signatures in general,
because they don't have what they regard as a sufficiently robust way to
ensure (and indeed insure) that the Trust Service Provider has done
their job properly.

And of course, there's the emerging issue (which I think deserves more
exposure) of online (aka paperless) billing and accounting, where
suppliers almost routinely shred (or make inaccessible) all the data
when you switch to a different one.

I moved energy supplier last year, and I very much doubt I could log
into the old supplier and retrieve my earlier bills.

The rise of the Gig economy, and Millennials stuck in rented
accommodation, also adds a scaling issue to the data because few people
will any longer have lived the same place for 10yrs, worked for the same
employer for 20yrs, let alone used the same telco for 30yrs.

[1] As a profession, guided by their professional bodies etc.
--
Roland Perry

[Tim Woodall]

On 2018-05-01, Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 01 May 2018 14:04:28 +0100, Graeme wrote:
>>

>> I know some people are minimalist, but surely most people hang on to
>> some paper? Old driving licenses, passports, tax records, NI numbers,
>> school reports, exam certificates?
>

> Ah, that's the mirror flip ....
>
> I keep *everything*. Which according to the Inland Revenue circa 1993
> only fraudsters do. They were very annoyed that I was able to send them
> bank statements back to 1982 which I had kept (and still have).
>

I used to keep everything until I sold my 3 bed house and moved into a
studio flat.

At that point I was ruthless. With the exception of things you need to
keep forever (certificates etc) everything older than 7 years went.
Additionally, everything younger than that that wasn't needed for tax
went.

Over time I then started scanning things that I needed to keep and now
all I have is a 'to be scanned' pile which varies in size.

I think I do now lose things - throwing out something that should be
scanned first.

One thing I did realise perhaps I should have kept is evidence I had had
motor insurance and a full NCD. Although after 15 years, I doubt it
would make much difference should I ever get a car again.

[Jimbo GM4DHJ ...]

On 5/2/2018 10:32 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:

> On Tue, 01 May 2018 20:57:12 +0100, Robin wrote:
>
>> On 01/05/2018 18:54, Chris R wrote:

>>> [quoted text muted]

>>
>> While there is a lot in that, there is one bit of government that does
>> try really hard to keep records back to the 40s: the National Insurance
>> office in Newcastle which is now part of HMRC.
>

> Except their records are in a frightful state.
>
> I am lucky in having a unique name. However a friend with a not-too-
> uncommon-name (luckily) discovered a few years back that all her NI had
> been recorded as being paid against another identical not-too-uncommon-
> name.
>
> The snafu only emerged when she had to claim a benefit and was told she'd
> not paid any NI. Luckily she had her payslips showing she *had*, and her
> contributions were mysteriously correctly re-attributed. I always had a
> suspicion that the other not-too-uncommon-name might get to their pension
> days and be told there was no record of *their* contributions.
>
> And that's before you discover that NI numbers are (unless it's an urban
> myth) not unique in themselves ....
>
that happened to me in the 70's my yx became yy for a while...but I have
every pay slip so no problem ....

[tim...]

"Robin" <rb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:14cec20d-f697-37d7...@hotmail.com...

they probably didn't

but unless you have had cause to ask for that data recently, you will have
no idea that it does exists in such a robust form

And, in any case, under the previous immigration rules, this data would be
seen as far from sufficient - only satisfying 1 of the pieces of information
require for each year - you will still have three to go

tim

[Roland Perry]

In message <pcc0jm$n36$1...@dont-email.me>, at 09:32:39 on Wed, 2 May 2018,
Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> remarked:

>And that's before you discover that NI numbers are (unless it's an urban
>myth) not unique in themselves ....

Most of them are, but certainly not all of them.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <pcc7tf$n36$3...@dont-email.me>, at 11:37:20 on Wed, 2 May 2018,

Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> remarked:

>>>And that's before you discover that NI numbers are (unless it's an urban
>>>myth) not unique in themselves ....
>>
>> Most of them are, but certainly not all of them.
>

>Er, is that a very subtle joke ?

No, it's an attempt to say most people have a unique NI number, but some
share it with another. (Then there's also a small of set of people with
two).
--
Roland Perry

[Brian Reay]

On 02/05/2018 12:37, Jethro_uk wrote:

> Er, is that a very subtle joke ?
>

It has been reported several times that there are 'problems' with people
using 'dubious' NI numbers.

What do I mean by 'dubious'? It seems there are issues with people
simply using other people's numbers - possibly in error in some cases-
and even suggestions of the same number being issued to different people.

It is worth, at least when you approach retirement, checking your
contribution record and verifying it corresponds to what you think it
should be.

[Roland Perry]

In message <pccooj$rhl$1...@dont-email.me>, at 16:24:51 on Wed, 2 May 2018,
Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> remarked:

>> It is worth, at least when you approach retirement, checking your
>> contribution record and verifying it corresponds to what you think it
>> should be.
>

>Presumably that's the easiest thing in the world ? All online and takes a
>few seconds ?

I would hope that producing evidence that it's *your* pension you are
checking (rather than someone else's) would involve more than a few
seconds work.
--
Roland Perry

[tim...]

"Jethro_uk" <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message
news:pccooj$rhl$1...@dont-email.me...

> On Wed, 02 May 2018 15:34:42 +0100, Brian Reay wrote:
>
>> It is worth, at least when you approach retirement, checking your
>> contribution record and verifying it corresponds to what you think it
>> should be.
>

> Presumably that's the easiest thing in the world ? All online and takes a
> few seconds ?

If you already have a Government Gateway account, yes

getting that account for the first time requires jumping through rather more
hoops (not unreasonably)

[Brian Reay]

On 02/05/2018 17:24, Jethro_uk wrote:
> On Wed, 02 May 2018 15:34:42 +0100, Brian Reay wrote:
>

>> It is worth, at least when you approach retirement, checking your
>> contribution record and verifying it corresponds to what you think it
>> should be.
>

> Presumably that's the easiest thing in the world ? All online and takes a
> few seconds ?
>

When I did mine, a few years back, I requested it (I think online*) and
a letter arrived maybe 2 weeks later.

*I may have phoned up, I'm not sure. Either way, it was easy.

The record was as I expected so I didn't need to follow up.

It may be that you can check the details online now but, as I have the
details I need, I've not bothered to try.

[Martin Brown]

On 01/05/2018 14:04, Graeme wrote:
> In message <pc6rc7$qtr$3...@dont-email.me>, Jethro_uk
> <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> writes
>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 10:28:35 +0100, Graeme wrote:
>>>
>>> Granted, none of the above would be proof of a right to be in the UK,
>>> but there must be enough paper somewhere, a paper trail, to establish a
>>> strong case?
>>
>> I doubt there are any extant (and codified) such records for myself, and
>> I am a couple of decades younger than the children who came to the UK in
>> the late 1940s.

There probably are but not in the public domain yet. National census
every 10 years, school records and electoral rolls for example.

> I thought than until my primary school managed to contact me, more than
> 40 years after I had left the school.
>
> I know some people are minimalist, but surely most people hang on to
> some paper?  Old driving licenses, passports, tax records, NI numbers,
> school reports, exam certificates?

Didn't the Home Office insist on four pieces of proof for each year?

I know I couldn't produce that!
(not least because I spent 8 years living overseas).

Experian might be able to provide pretty good background data on anyone
who was economically active - bought stuff on hire purchase etc. But it
wouldn't go back far enough.

Their residence data seemed to go back forever but with blind spots. I
suspect based on the electoral roll so if you didn't register to vote
you wouldn't exist on their database apart from for any credit deals or
phone contracts which only get retained for 6 years.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Graeme]

In message <pccia2$9pa$1...@dont-email.me>, Brian Reay <no...@m.com> writes

>
>It is worth, at least when you approach retirement, checking your
>contribution record and verifying it corresponds to what you think it
>should be.

Would is really be reasonable to expect the average person to know how
much has been paid in NI contributions over a working lifetime of around
40 years or more? Add in perhaps periods of unemployment, self
employment, contracted in/out etc., and I find it hard to believe that
most people would really know exactly how many years should be shown,
never mind how much.

I began receiving State pension last year, and whilst the amount I
receive is about what I expected, I don't think I would know if it were
not an exact reflection of my total contributions.
--
Graeme

[Roland Perry]

In message <JiYSVZX2Ns6aFwh$@binnsroad.myzen.co.uk>, at 09:08:22 on Thu,
3 May 2018, Graeme <Gra...@binnsroad.net> remarked:

>>It is worth, at least when you approach retirement, checking your
>>contribution record and verifying it corresponds to what you think it
>>should be.
>
>Would is really be reasonable to expect the average person to know how
>much has been paid in NI contributions over a working lifetime of
>around 40 years or more? Add in perhaps periods of unemployment, self
>employment, contracted in/out etc., and I find it hard to believe that
>most people would really know exactly how many years should be shown,
>never mind how much.

Does the answer come back as a set of dates and contribution rates, or
just a total? It'd be much easier to spot erroneous gaps in the former.

And not just erroneous gaps, but where a dodgy employer failed to pass
the contributions on - although potentially decades later, I'm not sure
how a remedy could be devised.

Of course, on one hand all this will get worse with the Gig economy; on
the other hand Workplace Pensions might provide a parallel audit trail
of people's employment status.

>I began receiving State pension last year, and whilst the amount I
>receive is about what I expected, I don't think I would know if it were
>not an exact reflection of my total contributions.

I wonder how many people who have what I'd call a "fairly normal"
contributions history fail to reach the full-pension threshold.
--
Roland Perry

[tim...]

"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:LbOPcFGE...@perry.co.uk...

> In message <JiYSVZX2Ns6aFwh$@binnsroad.myzen.co.uk>, at 09:08:22 on Thu, 3
> May 2018, Graeme <Gra...@binnsroad.net> remarked:
>>>It is worth, at least when you approach retirement, checking your
>>>contribution record and verifying it corresponds to what you think it
>>>should be.
>>
>>Would is really be reasonable to expect the average person to know how
>>much has been paid in NI contributions over a working lifetime of around
>>40 years or more? Add in perhaps periods of unemployment, self
>>employment, contracted in/out etc., and I find it hard to believe that
>>most people would really know exactly how many years should be shown,
>>never mind how much.
>
> Does the answer come back as a set of dates and contribution rates, or
> just a total? It'd be much easier to spot erroneous gaps in the former.

it's a set of dates with a confirmation that you paid enough to qualify that
year or an amount short of the qualifying amount if you didn't

In theory, you can pay that different amount to make that year qualify if,
at the end of the list, you don't have a full pension

but sometimes filling in that year makes no difference, and the form doesn't
tell you that

[Graeme]

In message <LbOPcFGE...@perry.co.uk>, Roland Perry
<rol...@perry.co.uk> writes

>In message <JiYSVZX2Ns6aFwh$@binnsroad.myzen.co.uk>, at 09:08:22 on
>Thu, 3 May 2018, Graeme <Gra...@binnsroad.net> remarked:

>>I find it hard to believe that most people would really know exactly
>>how many years should be shown, never mind how much.
>
>Does the answer come back as a set of dates and contribution rates, or
>just a total? It'd be much easier to spot erroneous gaps in the former.

When I attained age 65 in August last year, I received a statement which
I was requested to check carefully. Fair enough, and it confirmed
personal details of self and wife, plus confirmation of the amounts
payable as New State Pension and Protected Payment, but nothing to say
how the figures were calculated.

Earlier correspondence (Oct 15) advised I had 47 qualifying years.

--
Graeme

[ingram....@gmail.com]

On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 10:34:40 AM UTC+1, tim... wrote:
...

> it's a set of dates with a confirmation that you paid enough to qualify that
> year or an amount short of the qualifying amount if you didn't

...

In my on-line tax return area, or thereabouts under the same login, there is a list of my NI contributions for every year, with total amounts per year that agree with my records, right back to the 1970s; only a few of the early years are shown as full contribution rather than the actual amount.

nib

[Brian Reay]

The record shows years / numbers of contribution credited. Essentially
you just need to check there are no 'gaps' there shouldn't be etc. I
would think most people would remember where they'd worked, if they'd
been unemployed* etc. The report is easy enough to understand.

As I recall, you need 35 years of contributions to get the new pension
in full. The report includes a pension prediction.

I assume the old scheme did the same, although it required 30 years
contributions. (It changed several times but was 30 I believe before the
new scheme was introduced.)

*I believe you get credit for time unemployed but I'm not sure.

[Brian Reay]

47 years is well over the qualifying number (35) for the new scheme.
You don't get 'extra' for your extra years ;-(

[Roland Perry]

In message <pcfa23$lqb$1...@dont-email.me>, at 16:32:18 on Thu, 3 May 2018,
Brian Reay <no...@m.com> remarked:

>As I recall, you need 35 years of contributions to get the new pension
>in full. The report includes a pension prediction.
>
>I assume the old scheme did the same, although it required 30 years
>contributions. (It changed several times but was 30 I believe before
>the new scheme was introduced.)
>
>*I believe you get credit for time unemployed but I'm not sure.

If you signed on. Very few people of my acquaintance would have dreamt
of doing that, while "resting" between one white collar job and the
next.
--
Roland Perry

[Sara Merriman]

In article <JiYSVZX2Ns6aFwh$@binnsroad.myzen.co.uk>, Graeme

<Gra...@binnsroad.net> wrote:

> In message <pccia2$9pa$1...@dont-email.me>, Brian Reay <no...@m.com> writes
> >
> >It is worth, at least when you approach retirement, checking your
> >contribution record and verifying it corresponds to what you think it
> >should be.
>
> Would is really be reasonable to expect the average person to know how
> much has been paid in NI contributions over a working lifetime of around
> 40 years or more? Add in perhaps periods of unemployment, self
> employment, contracted in/out etc., and I find it hard to believe that
> most people would really know exactly how many years should be shown,
> never mind how much.

I know I've worked non-stop and paid NI for 40 years (worked from age
16, now aged 56) but I've no idea what that would like in terms of
amount to check.

[Robin]

On 04/05/2018 10:35, Sara Merriman wrote:
>
> I know I've worked non-stop and paid NI for 40 years (worked from age
> 16, now aged 56) but I've no idea what that would like in terms of
> amount to check.

You are very probably already entitled to a full state pension[1] i.d.c.
but I suggest you check well in advance as NI records aren't perfect and
you might as well give them a few years to look for any missing years ;)
Easy route is <https://www.gov.uk/check-state-pension>

[1] "full" in terms of years. The amount is another matter and depends
on eg whether you've been contracted out.

[Sara Merriman]

In article <a70db9ac-eefb-9237...@hotmail.com>, Robin

Ta.

[Vir Campestris]

On 30/04/2018 10:28, Graeme wrote:
> Perhaps they have chosen not to be on the electoral roll

I was not aware that this is optional.

Andy

[Roland Perry]

In message <pcikt9$fbv$1...@dont-email.me>, at 22:55:57 on Fri, 4 May 2018,
Vir Campestris <vir.cam...@invalid.invalid> remarked:

>> Perhaps they have chosen not to be on the electoral roll
>
>I was not aware that this is optional.

It's optional for those unconcerned that they might get caught out.

What elections would an undocumented Windrush person be eligible to vote
in?
--
Roland Perry

[Chris R]

On 03/05/2018 16:41, Brian Reay wrote:
> On 03/05/2018 11:24, Graeme wrote:
>> In message <LbOPcFGE...@perry.co.uk>, Roland Perry
>> <rol...@perry.co.uk> writes
>>> In message <JiYSVZX2Ns6aFwh$@binnsroad.myzen.co.uk>, at 09:08:22 on
>>> Thu, 3 May 2018, Graeme <Gra...@binnsroad.net> remarked:

>> When I attained age 65 in August last year, I received a statement
>> which I was requested to check carefully.  Fair enough, and it
>> confirmed personal details of self and wife, plus confirmation of the
>> amounts payable as New State Pension and Protected Payment, but
>> nothing to say how the figures were calculated.
>>
>> Earlier correspondence (Oct 15) advised I had 47 qualifying years.
>>
> 47 years is well over the qualifying number (35) for the new  scheme.
> You don't get 'extra' for your extra years ;-(

You do if you were contracted-out for some of those years. For each
extra year you do, the contracted-out deduction form your pension is
reduced.
--
Chris R

========legalstuff========
I post to be helpful but not claiming any expertise nor intending
anyone to rely on what I say. Nothing I post here will create a
professional relationship or duty of care. I do not provide legal
services to the public. My posts here refer only to English law except
where specified and are subject to the terms (including limitations of
liability) at http://www.clarityincorporatelaw.co.uk/legalstuff.html
======end legalstuff======