NIS should pay without further delay

Nov 06, 2021 Letters

Dear Editor

This is my second letter on the issue of the denial of earned pension by NIS to my fellow villager Ingrid Arthur – A6219976. Since then, a formal request has been made to the NIS for a review of the tabulation of the contributions of this lady but to no avail. It is for this reason that a second public appeal is made with the hope that someone in authority would take notice and action so that justice can be achieved. The following serves to inform the reasons for this public appeal:
i) A NIS print-out of her contributions dated January 26, 2015, determined that she accumulated 752 contributions from 1997 to 2014; that is over a seventeen years period. Additionally, over the said period, she earned $5,268,312 and contributed $685,058 to the NIS. This information has been extracted and verified by NIS officials with the official stamp of the NIS authenticating same. Based on this information, she was qualified for a pension with two contributions over the qualifying figure of 750 contributions.

ii) She reached the age of 60 years on August 21, 2018. She approached NIS for her pension but was denied same. She was subsequently given a second print-out of her contributions dated December 6, 2018. This time it read as follows: accumulated contributions 748, thereby disqualifying her of a pension by two contributions. Wages earned for the said period 1997 to 2014: $5,266,360. contributions to NIS $684,804.
A perusal of the differences in figures in the two print-outs reveal glaring arithmetical error in the computation of her contributions for the year 2014 – the last year contributions are recorded for her. The figures for the print-outs have matched unto the year 2013.
In the print-out dated January 26, 2015, she is credited with 45 contributions in 2014.
However, in the print-out dated December 6, 2018, she is credited with 41contirbutions in 2014 – a reduction of four contributions, therefore making herineligible for a pension by two (2) contributions.
A further perusal of her contributions in 2014 reveal the following:
i) – Print-out – January 26, 2015 value of contributions to NIS in 2014; $ 70,128
– Print-out – December 6, 2018 value of contributions to NIS in 2014; $ 69,874
ii) Difference in value of contributions made to NIS in 2014; $70,128 less $ 69874 =$
254
ii) Using the December 6, 2018 print-out it is determined that the value of each contribution would be $ 69,874/41=$ 1704
iv) A shortfall of four contributions would be $ 1704x 4=$6,816. But the NIS has a shortfall of four contributions with a value of $ 254!
v) It should be clear then, that the figures presented by the NIS are patently erroneous.
The question then is, why is NIS not paying this lady her pension even though the glaring error in their computation has been pointed out to them?
The NIS should pay this lady her pension without further delay, inclusive of the arrears dating back to August, 2018 when she would have attained the age of 60 years.

Sincerely
Patrick Hamilton