In October 2017 she became a pensioner. When calculating the insurance experience, the work experience of 1991-1995 was not taken into account, citing the fact that the seal is unreadable – this is the time of work at a plant in the Republic of Uzbekistan. Since June, there is no answer to the PF request. Postponed registration of the pension for 3 months. In November, through the site itself Classmates contacted the former colleague, and she sent me an archival certificate confirming the work experience of 1991-1995. I jumped for joy, rushed to the PF, and there I was lowered to the ground: this certificate is unknown from where (although it was designed in accordance with the requirements that they confirmed in the PF), but it turns out they will take into account only the certificate that comes to their address on their request. Brought them: – Agreement of March 13, 1992 between Russia and the CIS countries; – Decision of the Economic Court of the CIS that countries should adopt in their territories without legalization the documents issued in due course on the territory of the CIS member states , not to mention other Federal Laws of the Russian Federation. There is no sense. They are resisted that they will only receive an answer to their request and to their address, such as in this way they check the validity of the information given in my archival reference. Tell me, can anyone come across this situation. Which exit?
Hello Galina. I was also told an unreadable seal, the period of work in Kazakhstan in the 90s, I have described my history here many times on the site. I myself requested proof of length of service and salary, and the Pension Fund itself also made (?) A request. So, the answer to these alleged requests of the Pension Fund, I haven’t seen before, but I sent the Pension Fund all that I received from Kazakhstan and they took it into account. True it took a lot of time. And I was paid the minimum pension for more than a year. And they counted the pension from the day the documents were submitted, and not from the day the pension was granted. Now, when the story is over (sincerely I want to believe in it) with confirmation of the length of service and salary in Kazakhstan, I think that it was necessary to immediately sue the Pension Fund, when they still refused early retirement, there was an official refusal and about this period of work in Kazakhstan was indicated. For a year with little communication with the Pension Fund, I came to the conclusion that all the conversations and correspondence with the Pension Fund, spending and delaying time, and hence the pension not received.
Any non-standard statements to the PF are best served in person at the office or reception, with registration of the incoming number and date of delivery, and corresponding marks on the second copy. applications. Yes, and through LC it’s not possible to file such an application, there you can send only generally accepted applications (assignment of a pension, delivery of a pension, transfer from one type of pension to another and
Only the court! I designed the early retirement at 55 years old, as an employee of civil
First, you have confirmation of the experience by the competent authorities of Uzbekistan, which you have handed over to the FIU. If you documented the transfer of the document to the FIU, then at the court, explain that you received from the competent Authorities and transferred to the Respondent in accordance with the Pension Assignment Rules, 884,
2. Examination do not why, if you have the proper information. You provide them, and if in doubt, the Respondent proves why it doubts its authenticity, and if this is brought up for discussion by the court, then it may be necessary. But you have to pay for it.
Thirdly, the FIU may, when necessary, do the checks. To do this, he must send letters of notification and inventory, but not ordinary ones.
There is a lot more that can be advised, everything is individual, of course, but when the Organ backs up or changes tactics, it means that not everything is fair or that the cap is on fire. Good luck
The answer to this post can be written in verse: If it were all so simple, there would not be so many topics on 45-90.
And besides this, a large number of people to whom the FIU refuses to grant a pension because of all sorts of complaints and cavils.
Good day! Our trial took place on July 3rd. Took into account all the advice that was given on this forum and our claim was satisfied, we can say completely. The decision will come into force on August 5, while there was no information on the appeal. Since I myself represented the interests of my father, I can draw conclusions: 1. It is only through the court that you can resolve issues on controversial periods regarding the appointment of a pension ahead of schedule. 2. Arguments that the Pension Fund will only accept information received on their requests are not consistent. And the judge will take this into account. 3. Experience insurance and preferential, acquired in the territory of the former CIS countries until 1992, take on the workbook and job title, according to the list. 4. The period of service in the army can and should be asked to be credited to the preferential length of service, if required by law. 5. Do not waste time waiting for inquiries on PF requests, they make requests that will never be answered. Take the initiative in your hands! Search online archives or operating enterprises and ask for help! 6. Be sure to attend a court hearing and assert your rights. Do not skimp on the claim, you can’t do it yourself like me, contact competent lawyers, besides, they are on this forum. We had a statement on 9 pages, described everything to the smallest detail. 7. In the judicial debate, be sure to ask for the title of the law on which the refusal is based. I got this advice here and it really helped! I want to thank all the people who helped me with advice, it was extremely important! I really hope that there will be no appeal, but in any case we will fight. Thank!
Angela is legally required to provide the applicant. And the FIU may or may not check them, but is obliged to accept them, including from the Applicant. At the same time, the main thing: ALL certificates must be submitted with a cover letter and put a mark on admission, so that there is evidence that the certificates were submitted by you on a specific date.
The fact is that when it comes to early pensions, including teachers, the FIU is trying to postpone or find shortcomings in order to refuse if it finds "clues".
And very often, at the same time, he bases his actions not on the Law, but on certain instructions or, more often, on instructions from superiors, while interpreting the law in his own favor, which is not legitimate. Therefore, if you see that they put obstacles in one way or another or simply refer to excuses, get ready to go to court, including
Good day! I also have a refusal, already one and a half years of struggle. Motivates the FIU by the fact that I have no documented work experience and the seal is not readable, in
As far as I understand, according to the Regulations
they should not have refused to grant you a pension, but suspend the appointment of a pension before receiving documents from Moldova.
There is a legal difference here. To begin with, in the event of a suspension, the situation will force the RF Pension Fund to make inquiries again and again until the result is obtained. And so – refused and adyu!
In general, in these “silence” PF of the CIS countries there is some kind of collusion. “We will not give evidence to yours, and you will not give ours. You will refuse your pension, we will refuse it. ”
I think it is worth asking them:
Cancellation of refusal and transfer of the case to the “suspension” mode until all documents are received.
Confirmation of the fact of sending the request to Moldova by extracts from the correspondence logs and the post code of the Russian Post.
This is all not new. Back in 2011, I was told the same thing as you, and when we left Tashkent in 2003 and I collected archival information for all the archives, I was directly told by the staff of the Tashkent archives that Uzbekistan did not respond to requests, and all requests they just throw away. This year in February 2018 due to the fact that I was given a minimum pension in 2011 (and the employee of the Volga Federal District slipped among other papers to sign a certificate stating that I allegedly did not provide any income statement at all!) , and I repeated the attempt to recalculate the pension, once again appealing to the Pension Fund, I spent 4,500.0 rubles for a notarized translation of archive references from the Central Statistical Bureau of the UzSSR, where I worked, and where the salary was good. Hoped that now in Uzb. the new president, and there something has changed for the better. In vain – after 3 months of waiting, the FIU sent a refusal to recalculate due to the fact that the answer to their request was not received. Recently, in August, I once again came to the reception of the FIU, I was told that I had come early, the answers go very long — by the year, and sometimes more. In my opinion, it’s profitable for Uzbekistan, why work, send replies, and Russia now pay me a pension less than the minimum,
In the PF (from now on I’ll call it that. Angry became. Today) Chertissuki (enemies of the invaders, that is, look at their hari – sat down, understand everything. There – the smell of sulfur, the entrance – with a gas mask) .Irina! Simple thing: if help already translated by a notary public, they are proper! That is, the documents are correct (correct – well, how else can they be understood? Notary, is he an idiot? No! He assured the translation? Yes! So, the references are real, final, reinforced concrete. Right, real, final. Our song is good The appropriate documents are evidence (not in pf. In court!). The court takes into account the proper (only their!) Evidence, that is, issued by a person authorized to issue such evidence, especially with a notarized translation. There is evidence of proper evidence (article 67, as far as I remember – check, read the titles of the articles) law – Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation (GIC RF). This code is governed by court.You go to court, indicate article 67 (what is it? Maybe 68? Look, it’s easy!) RF Code of Civil Procedure – and prove to court (not pf. Who is pf at all? Is he outlawed? No! He is obliged to accept proper documents? Obligated! Not accepted – draw up an act of refusal in the presence of a police squad !.!.!. Devils! Freaks! Scum! Send by mail , by registered letter with acknowledgment of receipt. With the investment inventory. Receipts, inventories – to be stored for the court. Present them to the court) – that the documents are submitted to the PF in a timely manner (and the certificate is from you – to whom! did not submit a single certificate of income – notproper! she is – notcorrect. You – not have the right to issue such Help She is – not corresponds to the facts about what you presented the necessary documents in pf). pf need to bury. And who will say that requests from pf are thrown away by someone, ask him (the speaker) for a receipt – they will forget their last name immediately (jokes with jokes, but you can’t be careless. You can also turn on the dictaphone, after all. Where are the addresses, passwords, turnout? Or – no?), And, maybe, and – no? Who knows? If the speaker is will confirm fact documented where (same to the prosecutor?) have to go? If a not confirm – let not says! The absent answer to the request of the PF is not an obstacle to the consideration of the dispute in court on the basis of available in evidence (which does not confirm the correctness of the PF, and Your). That is – there is no answer to the request pf – and damn it. We can do without it.
Well so must be?
I welcome you, dear bb ! I’m glad you understood me well! )) The ethics of the forum (any) I feel and understand well! And I always say (write) what not from the head goes, but from the inside – the heart (soul) is not capable of making mistakes. depending on the situation and its sharpness – these are the emotions (feelings)! after the culmination everything calms down, and EVERYTHING rises to its place.
Yes! and no matter what you "have sent" (this, after all, was expected?) – here is the keyword "SIGNAL"! Daaaaa. too. Ochchchen powerfully you read this signal between the lines!, spreading out on the shelves large and small Signalchiki! The court’s decision was stitched with straw (not even threads, and not even whites), which they both confessed and signed! (It’s a pity that without a protocol!)))) Puzzled, however, you, the judiciary! and not even a puzzler, but a Dilemma, where both options are worthless to ugliness! )) besides, so lousy that they chose (in their own way, hmmm, short-sightedness) nihrenovy))) (purely human, even they were sorry, but only for a couple of minutes while I smoked) – if you are Power, you simply have to BE far-sighted! Respected bb !! You "lost" on paper . only))) By the Present Position of Things – Your victory! And Ours too! (maybe he said loudly about Us? but, I see, you fought for Us too!). So, 2018 is for you (and, moreover, for Us) is not over yet. September 1, just tomorrow. )))
Good health, BluesMan53! Actually, I didn’t care if I won or not. The question is about clarification. If clarified would – it meant would Immediately, it is impossible to apply, because the pension was appointed to me without taking into account the clarification. "F" not in the law, despite the fact that it is) – all the same: paragraph 2 cannot be applied. However, it is a win-win lottery. Having decision, I can now control it with the help of it, that is, referring to it, at the same time point to law (why not?) So, my task is to apply to the PF with a request not to apply clause 2, but to apply another article — 3 (which, actually, I did two months ago. The answer I received from the capital city already. What he – guess yourself with three times. It remains – to write a lawsuit, attaching and the decision, and the law, and the answer! The lawsuit begins – with statements to the local PF administration, it is not yet aware of what is happening, but it has been notified, as I am sure, through the channels! And in the COP my complaint – go. Parallel. Because in accordance with the rules of consideration of citizens’ appeals, the pf is obliged to give an answer on the merits. But on essentially, by existence, I mean – no answer. No existence – no answer. But "F" – exists! Let’s wait for the answer of the COP). About the details (quite a bit). The main thing – I submitted to the court (again! As in the court of first instance) – the text of the law on paper (that is, in fact, the original bulletin "The collection of legislation of the Russian Federation, No. 52, part I, 2001. In the library they give out on the fact of registration). I refused to review the regional court (they explained that you were sticking to us, we go to these latrines, we know everything in advance). My petition was rejected, which means. I immediately repeated the petition to declare – to review the original of the law anyway, because the court of first instance in the list of case sheets and in the protocol not it is indicated (the information was falsified) that the case contains a copy of the official law that was submitted for review by the court (that is, this means that if the regional court refuses the review – just hold on – the criminal act will definitely be notorious). Whispering – court – surveyed LAW (devils). Conclusion: if you do not want even the original law, signed by Putin himself to review – ask again. And – for the third time. After the third time already – not askingandthose will be blamed You same in abuse of the right. And the fact that they refused three times – it is necessary to enter in the protocol (that is, to check, read the protocol in the same day – let them try not to issue. There is already a complaint to the president of the court will have to write – and who wants to "on the carpet" to visit the chairman? Explain to you that – come in three days. But the date drafting a protocol – they will no longer sign on the day of the court hearing, but will be signed on the day after court hearing. And is it important. Who wants to know why? – explain separately if necessary. And if there is no information that you asked to review the original of the law three times, comments on the protocol should be submitted. And then – again the complaint to the president of the court – let "dragging" the so-called court. All this – pressure to court by law – only this and you can push). But after I pressured to court – he interest I lost the case (but I don’t give a damn. I have my own blood, I have to prove it. The court has it all good in life, and I have pf blood to drink. That’s all.) And I realized right away – what, what a solution will be! But actually today, September 1, 2018, congratulations to all! In the courts of general jurisdiction they introduced – finally – the obligatory keeping of the audio recording of the court session (it would be time to have a video, well, okay. We are waiting for IL in court. Let’s have fun. He will make a video. And I will not "managed" a little, for a day. But – I’ll make it up again). The option of a solution is, of course, the worst one (I don’t argue) for the judiciary and the PF (thank you, dear BluesMan53, for an accurate analysis of what is happening). But – wait and see (September 1, of course, the year is not over yet ). And the kids – to school.