The retirement age for Local Government is indeed 65, which is why despite being over 60 and retired since I was 55, have not drawn my Pension yet as I don't want the deduction.

The only time you can take it at 60 onwards with no deduction is if you have reached the Rule of 85, where your length of service plus your age adds up to 85 or more. This does mean I can actually draw mine a few months before my 65th birthday with no penalties.

Doesn't sound like you need a winter fuel payment Scampi???

why???

In the NHS you could retire and draw full pension as long as you were 60 and had paid 40 years contributions.

Why not?

Doesn't sound like you do that's all. You retired early & haven't drawn your pension yet so you're obviously not in need of benefits. Just an observation.

I had a very small pension with the local authority and was allowed to take it at 60. The difference between that and leaving it to 65 was minimal.

A bird in the hand ....

...is better than a hundred flying" as the Spanish would say!
Más vale pájaro en mano que cien volando.

Well it isn't minimal for me, I could take my Pension now, but I would lose about £500 a year for the rest of my life and some off the lump sum too, my pension is only about £2.5k a year before deductions, so i would like to wait until I can have it with NO deductions.

Each to their own choice!

(However, just checked and I will lose far less than this next August if I take it two years early (about 250 a year), so might review my financial situation then as we might needthe lump sum to get a new car!!)

I now get a State Pension. However when we first retired we lived in Spain on less than £9k a year from my husband's Teachers' Pension (which he lost a third of for taking it five years early).

If you left the Local Government superannuation scheme before the increased retirement age was introduced, ie you had frozen benefits, you still receive them at age 60. My OH has been receiving his LG pension for 2 years now, with no actuarial reduction. This never seemed very fair to me, when people who carried on working in Local Government have to wait until 65, in most cases.

It will indeed be interesting to see the outcome of the legal action. Why should it not be seen as mis-selling, when people signed up to a pension scheme because it offered certain things (and often that was one of the main reasons, if not the only reason, why they chose to take a job with that employer), and then they see the benefits being diluted. Changing the rules for new entrants is one thing, if the scheme is proving too expensive to be sustainable in the long term, but taking benefits away from existing members is wrong, IMO.

And yes, I know that people paying into private schemes have suffered losses - I am one of them, having paid into an AVC scheme in addition to my final salary scheme. The private AVC scheme has performed miserably, I would have been better off keeping the money under the mattress. All that shows is that the Government is being disingenuous by urging people to make provision for their retirement by signing up to such schemes, whilst slashing benefits in the only ones that are really worthwhile.

The retirement age for Local Government has always been 65, afaik. Maybe your husband qualified because he fulfilled the Rule of 85? My colleague was in this position, by the time he was 60 he had paid into the Pension Scheme for over 30 years, so 60 + 30 = 90 (more than 85). If you are in this position you can take your Pension at 60 with no actuarial reduction.

Unfortunatley, I do not fulfil the rule of 85 until a few months before my 65th birthday.

I was in the civil service years ago, and my retirement date (yes, I actually get a pension from them) is 60. The wife retired at 60 as well. Civil and Local are obviously different, unless they have changed the goal posts on that as well

Yes, afaik they are different.