Pension

Hi to everyone out there!

I've been reading the posts on the forum for quite a while and have become concerned about the pension part of the settlement I received. Went to court in april for 1st hearing which was used to finalise everything. Ex was extremely anxious not to go further as he didn't want to disclose info re accounts and money he has stashed away.
Anyway he has police pension with CETV at the time of 197,000
he offered me 40% (with no sposal maintainence) which I accepted ( I had asked for 30% with sposal maintainence) Decree Absolute in June. My solicitor sent me docs to be signed from the pension people and I sent them off with my birth cert. Since then I have heard nothing. Have tried contacting sol but he's either with client or in court.

As I said I have been looking at the posts concerning pensions (which I don't know much about) and am now concerned that the 40% may not be as good as it seemed. He is 47 and can draw the pension at 52(early retirement)he will also get a significant lump sum. I am 48 and have to wait till 65 to draw the pension. This is what I have been told by barrister.

I would really appreciate anyones comments on this especially those who understand pensions.

I do understand that as everything has been stamped by the court there isn't anything I can do about it now; I just want to know for the future what I am looking at.

I too knew nothing about pension sharing when I had to do it at the FDR - you are not alone.
Both Police pension handbooks are online - old PPS and new NPPS - old scheme PPS an ex-spouse can take a pension at 60 new scheme NPPS it's 65 - so useful to know if he switched into NPPS.
I think you should have notice from the pension scheme that your pension share has been implemented within 4 months of getting the Pension Sharing Order from court.
You should contact the pension scheme to check?
police.homeoffice.gov.uk/human-resources/police-pensions/

Pinkfish

It is not my business to say whether 40% of the police pension was a reasonable deal or not. However, I can tell you that the CETV quoted by the police pension scheme will have significantly under valued your ex’s pension. You say that there is not anything you can do about the settlement you agreed as it has been stamped by the court. Others (particularly the lawyers who post on this forum) can say whether that really is the case.

As you say, your ex can retire at 52, which is one of the very valuable features of most of the so-called “uniformed services” pension schemes. This is because the CETV calculation assumes that the scheme member has left service. This has a significant affect on the value because if a member leaves service before retirement they cannot retire until they are 60 (1987 Police Pension Scheme rules) or 65 (New Police Pension Scheme 2006). This is one of the reasons why CETVs for members of the uniformed services are notorious for significantly under valuing the pensions of members.

I am sorry to be the bearer of such bad tidings.

Thank you for your reply.

It is as I was suspecting as it would have been out of character for the ex to be so generous, and the police do close ranks as I found to my great upset when very serious crimes where perpetrated upon me by the ex during the marriage.

With hindsight it would have been best to have rejected all offers and let the judge decide.

I just hope that 40% of 197,000 will enable me to have a reasonable amount to live on in old age. I am afraid it won't be, but having it will exclude me from state support.

hi there is a course of action left open to you and it is one that I suspect will increase over the next 10 years. if your lawyer did not cover all the options and did not advise you to get an actarial report or take independent financial advice then they may be held responsibl and open to a claim on their professional indemnity insurance. as an IFA my industry has been through this. and the bottom line is if it isn't written down then it wasn't said. when mistakes are made on pensions the loss can be very big. the lawywers reading this won't thank me for writing it, but the good lawyers won't mind because they are likely to be allready bringing in the services that peter and I offer and so pass the responsibility for providiing to another professional.
I guess its a question of cash because it will cost you money to explore any pension loss that you have experienced and then if you can show a financial loss the time and effort on making a claim against your lawyer
its an option but only you wil know if its worth it. hope it helps

Neo,

thanks to both you and Peter for your answers also I won't forget Maggie.

I don't think I am in a position at all to pursue this especially as it all comes down to funds. I will be content to have needs covered by the pension and I want more than anything to put the past horrible 20yrs behind me. There are things in life that are worth more than money. Nice people do get treated badly by the not so nice people and unfortunately that is the way we imperfect humans and our imperfect system are.

Once again thanks to all for your responses

I've just embarked on the solicitor complaint route.
It's difficult even to frame a complaint if you only know what happened in your case and not what's the norm.
I've been previously advised by TPAS in appealing to the trustees not to be made to transfer out having previously been offered membership - but TPAS say if I didn't get the right information from the pension scheme [ they were asked but gave ambiguous answers in Form P-] it's not the pension scheme's fault - ie no maladministration because my solicitor should have got the information.I asked my solicitor whether she got the information I was entitled to and was handed over to the partner who deals with complaints - I've waited two months for him to an answer to a simple factual question and have been forced to make a complaint to get an answer.It's not even clear that the Form P, completed two weeks before the FDR, was submitted to court.
The problem is proving damage - how can I show what I've lost by not being given at FDR the information on what benefits would be available to me and at what age?
All the information provided by the scheme offered scheme membership which I understood to mean membership of the DB scheme I was sharing.There are other problems: in the capital assets at a glance resume sheet submitted to court by my solicitor - the annual income figure for the deferred DB pension I shared appears as a pension CETV in my name.