As of: February 11, 2024, 5:24 a.m
By: Amy Walker
Comments
Press
Split
With private pension plans, it often happens that the pensions are reduced long after the contract has been concluded.
Insurers are citing declining returns on the capital market.
A court finds this doubtful.
Berlin – Are insurance companies allowed to subsequently adjust the pension factor for private pension provision so that a smaller pension is paid out later?
A regional court in Cologne has already decided that this is not possible - but according to the consumer advice center, the practice is still common.
That is why consumer advocates have now filed a lawsuit against four large insurance companies and are seeking a decision from the highest court.
According to the regional court, the clause in the Riester contract is invalid
Specifically, it concerns clauses in some contracts for private pension provision.
This stipulates that the insurer can reduce the pension to be paid out later if “the life expectancy of the insured person increases so much or the return on investments falls so much, not just temporarily, that the calculation bases are probably no longer sufficient, “to secure our pension payments in the long term.”
So to put it simply: If the pensioner could probably live much older than initially calculated or if the hoped-for return is not as high as calculated, then the pension will be reduced.
This is the only way the insurer can guarantee that the agreed pension can actually be paid out, according to the reasoning.
The catch: If the situation turns around again so that the reduction is no longer justified, then the insurers no longer have to reverse the pension reduction according to the contractual agreements.
This means that insurers can reduce pensions due to poor economic conditions, but they do not improve the situation of pensioners when conditions improve.
A person affected had sued the Cologne regional court against such a clause - and was right.
The reason for this was that it was not clear from the contract that the agreed pension was not guaranteed.
“The average policyholder is entitled to assume that the pension factor is set at this level,” said the Cologne Regional Court in its justification.
Consumer advice center wants to take legal action to the Federal Court of Justice
Although the consumer advice centers consider the district court's ruling to be an important milestone, they hope that more lawsuits will send a greater signal if, for example, a decision were also made by the Federal Court of Justice.
Lawsuits have now also been filed against the insurance companies Allianz, Axa, Zurich Deutscher Herold and LPV Lebensversicherung.
Wait until the payout phase or use your Riester credit early?
Riester savers are generally free to make this choice.
© Alexander Heinl/dpa-tmn
In addition, consumer advocates also encourage other affected parties to defend themselves against this practice.
“Immediate action is not necessary for policyholders with similar clauses in whose contracts the pension factor was reduced in the past.
However, you can now defend yourself against a corresponding pension reduction if the insurer has made it based on such a clause. This also applies to contracts that are already in the pension phase, according to the consumer advice center.
She publishes a sample letter for complaints here.
My news
Increase of up to 6 percent?
Read when the pension adjustment for 2024 will be announced
New Schufa rules decided: This is what consumers need to know read
Pension, rent and climate money: This is what the traffic light coalition is planning for 2024read
Mercedes boss Ola Källenius vows to prepare the company for uncertain times
Changes for pensioners: payment of pension and disability pension affected read
Russia threatens “logistics collapse”: China bank lets Putin run into the streets read
BGH removed another Riester clause in November
It was only in November that the consumer advice center celebrated a major success in one of its lawsuits against another clause in many Riester policies.
The disputed clause in this case stated that the customer had to pay “closing and/or brokerage costs, if applicable” before the payment could begin.
The Federal Court of Justice ruled that this was not transparent enough and therefore ineffective.
It represents an unreasonable disadvantage for consumers. Presiding judge Jürgen Ellenberger emphasized in the hearing that they should be able to recognize the burdens they will face when concluding the contract.
The Riester pension, introduced in 2002, has long been criticized, among other things because high fees and long-term low interest rates reduced returns.
As early as April 2023, the Federal Association of Consumer Organizations had criticized the costs that providers charge when payments begin.
Anyone who “reisters” should be able to save money for old age with the support of state allowances.
According to current figures from the Federal Ministry of Labor, there are currently almost 16 million Riester contracts.
It is estimated that a fifth to almost a quarter of this amount is not being saved at the moment.
With material from dpa