Twix is quite right. The court case referred to brought by the public sector unions is disputing the government’s decision to increase state sector occupational pensions by the lower CPI instead of RPI. The percentage losses alleged are cumulative over a number of years.
The Coalition promised to upgrade the State pension by either the increase in average earnings, or RPI or CPI, whichever is the greatest of the three. Their handling of the economy has seen the annual increase in RPI rise to 5.6% last month (upon which next April’s State pension increase will be based) and CPI to 5.2%. Faced with this, there is now talk that such an increase might be seen as “unfair” on workers (many of whom have seen no increase in their pay). So they are considering using an average of the last twelve months RPI figures because they consider the September figure to “unrepresentative”.
Of course this would be perfectly OK if a similar arrangement had been made on the numerous occasions in the past when a particularly low September figure was produced and it was considered “unrepresentative” of the otherwise high inflation figures of the rest of the year.
But strangely, it wasn’t.