A pensioner from Bavaria is to pay the insurance company 21,000 euros because they made a mistake when he retired five years ago. Instead of just under 1700 euros, she paid him 1900 euros net pension and now found that she had miscalculated.
Josef Laier from Augsburg is shocked. The 68-year-old has been retired for five years and received 1931.88 euros a month from the pension insurance system until the beginning of 2022. At the end of February he received a letter saying he had been paid too much. And: Laier should pay back around 21,000 euros. The “image” reports on the devastating case.
The reason for the mishap is an error in pension insurance when Laier’s pension entitlement was calculated for the first time. Because Laier was married to his first wife for 20 years. When the two divorced, he gave her 7.5 pension points. However, the insurance company had overlooked this – although Laier claims to have asked extra questions during the consultation. “Everything is already there” was the answer at the time.
At the beginning of 2022, Laier’s ex-wife also retired. The pension insurance company noticed her mistake and promptly sent out a recalculation of Josef Laier’s pension entitlement – including a reclaim of 21,000 euros.
Lucas Cordalis did not exactly become a crowd favorite in the jungle camp. Even behind the cameras there was little sympathy for Daniela Katzenberger’s husband, as show author Micky Beisenherz has now revealed.
Anne Will surprised a few weeks ago with her soon-to-be talk show – something has also changed privately with the presenter: she is said to be newly in love. Her new friend is 26 years younger and writer Helene Hegemann.
“They make a mistake and I should pay for it,” says the pensioner, outraged. That’s why he’s hired legal counsel. And he is confident: “The pension insurer has clearly miscalculated,” says Arndt Kempgens of “Bild”, but the person concerned “does not have to pay for it”.
The insurance company can correct the decision for the future. But she was not allowed to claim back services that had already been rendered, because Laier had not given false information. The insurance company replies: “Mr. Laier could have recognized that the explanations given there on the equalization of pensions do not correspond to the findings from the judgment of February 16, 1995.” Laier’s lawsuit will be heard at the Social Court on February 9th.
