A well respected, award winning social enterprise
Volunteer run - Government and charity funded
We help 50,000 people a year through divorce

01202 805020

Lines open: Monday to Friday 9am-5pm
Call for FREE expert advice & service info


What are we each entitled to in our divorce settlement?

What does the law say about how to split the house, how to share pensions and other assets, and how much maintenance is payable.

What steps can we take to reach a fair agreement?

The four basic steps to reaching an agreement on divorce finances are: disclosure, getting advice, negotiating and implementing a Consent Order.

What is a Consent Order and why do we need one?

A Consent Order is a legally binding document that finalises a divorcing couple's agreement on property, pensions and other assets.


Do you need help sorting out a fair financial settlement?

Our consultant service offers expert advice and support to help you reach agreement on a fair financial settlement quickly, and for less than a quarter of the cost of using a traditional high street solicitor.


pension share calculation

  • maggie
  • maggie's Avatar Posted by
  • Platinum Member
  • Platinum Member
More
19 Dec 07 #9295 by maggie
Topic started by maggie
From a determination in Nov 2007 by the Pensions Ombudsman
R00408
“If Mrs Clark were to receive a 25% pension share the benefits would be calculated as follows:
CETV @ 31.05.2004 is £661,612.56 x 25% = 165,403.14
165,403.14 = 137,950.90 1.1900
11.93 + (3 x 0.85) = 14.48
137,950.90 = 9526.99 pension 14.48
9526.99 x 3 = 28,580.99 lump sum "
The information was provided by the scheme administrators.
Is 9526.99 Mrs Clark's predicted annual pension income from a possible 25% pension share?
Do most pension sharers get an income prediction like that from the pension scheme on which to base negotiations before the pension share percentage is decided?

  • SummerSun
  • SummerSun's Avatar
  • Senior Member
  • Senior Member
More
20 Dec 07 #9307 by SummerSun
Reply from SummerSun
I think it depends on the analysis. It seems the dies to to attempt to equalise income at retirement ages for both sides.

  • maggie
  • maggie's Avatar Posted by
  • Platinum Member
  • Platinum Member
More
20 Dec 07 #9314 by maggie
Reply from maggie
My interest in this case is that the aim was to equalise pension income and lump sums at age 60/retirement.
It also reveals some of the nuts and bolts of how DB pension shares are calculated.
The Consent Order read:
"(b) The basis of the pensions sharing order shall be equalisation of pension incomes at age 60 (to include the Respondent’s projected future service based on his current pensionable salary, under his PCSPS pension and his AVC with Scottish Widows, …
(c) The pension lump sums resulting from paragraph 4(b) shall be equalised in accordance with paragraph 2(c) above.”

  • maggie
  • maggie's Avatar Posted by
  • Platinum Member
  • Platinum Member
More
21 Dec 07 #9371 by maggie
Reply from maggie
In other words it is possible to base the pension share percentage on the predicted retirement income of each spouse - and it is possible for the person responsible for the pension arrangement to predict, in time for the FDR,the income and lump sum available to the spouse without/with the lesser pension from the pension share.
According to David Salter this is the fairest way to share pensions both in payment and not in payment which are after all about income after age 60/65.
This settlement also appears to include future increases in pension.
In this case the Civil Service pension administrator seems to have volunteered the information on the effect of a 25% share so that the effect of sharing on retirement income can be predicted.
The Regulations / Form P should ask pension arrangements to predict the pension income and lump sum from a 25% share for the ex-spouse and the resulting reduced pension benefits for the pension member so that people can see how sharing affects both.

  • Vail
  • Vail's Avatar
  • Platinum Member
  • Platinum Member
More
21 Dec 07 #9375 by Vail
Reply from Vail
Er Maggie,

Thank you for putting that post up. At the moment the calculations are totally incomprehensible to me. I know they mean something and perhaps one day I'll get to grips with it but I wondered whether I was alone in thinking that all these projections and factors are actually worthless to the individual?

They seem to be based on statistics and may be useful for anticipating trends by covering the mean of a large population sample but for one single person the act of trying to equalise retirement pensions is in my opinion like trying to guess how many tuppeny pieces they may have in their pocket/purse at 12.00 pm on 12th August 2027.

Is it just me or does anyone else here feel that when the parties are in their 40s or younger, the effort spent on pension splitting/sharing/predictions in divorce proceedings is disproportionate to the parties' needs? I mean, what is relevant is cash now - how are they going to live - now?

God only knows what is going to happen in the future.

  • Peter@BDM
  • Peter@BDM's Avatar
  • Platinum Member
  • Platinum Member
More
21 Dec 07 #9381 by Peter@BDM
Reply from Peter@BDM
There is an awful lot of sense being written by people posting on this topic. I may be about to buck the trend!

David Salter is a highly respected practitioner and I am very reluctant to question his views, particularly as I don’t know exactly what they are on this subject. Maggie suggests that sharing pensions based on the income they produce at a given age is considered the fairest method and in some respects, I would agree. On the face of it, each party having exactly the same amount of pension at a given age, is a fair solution. But is that still fair if one partly can retire ten years earlier than the other can and therefore receive the pension for ten years before that of their partner? Is that still fair? And what if they can both draw the pension now thereby achieving equality, but because of gender and age differences, one partly is likely to draw the pension for longer than the other?

Peter.

  • maggie
  • maggie's Avatar Posted by
  • Platinum Member
  • Platinum Member
More
21 Dec 07 #9397 by maggie
Reply from maggie
Salter on pension sharing after Martin-Dye appeal - says his best practice principles also apply to pensions not in payment
www.familylawweek.co.uk/library.asp?i=2642
1.6 Unanswered Questions [!!!]

I can only tell you this approach would have avoided a lot of the bother I've had.

Moderators: wikivorce teamrubytuesdaydukeyhadenoughnowTetsSheziLinda SheridanForsetiMitchumWhiteRoseLostboy67WYSPECIALBubblegum11