Police Pension

mdoll,

In the first instance the valuation needs to established by H asking for the Cash Equivalent Transfer Value from the scheme. Then a cost analysis can be made whether or not it is worth having an actuarial valuation carried out.

Once the value of H's fund is known in Scotland pensions are apportioned by dividing the value by the number of years of membership to the scheme and multiplying that figure by the number of years of scheme membership during the marriage.

eg £50k (pension value) divided by 10 (years membership to the scheme) multiply by 4 (years of scheme membership during the marriage) = £20k to be shared between the two parties

The choice then is pension sharing, offsetting the pension against other assets or earmarking when benefits only become payable to an ex-spouse when the member’s benefits are paid.

Hi Louise11,

Ouch! Aren't you like your avatar...
OK, I was trying to make a point intended to be of general relevance rather than directed at you or your particular case, and came across as dissing you in the process. Apologies. I really didn't intend to sound rude or patronising, honest. And we're probably not really disagreeing so very much: you came up with a calculation that got the right answer, you also accept "that is not to say it will work in every case".

I didn't suggest it wasn't bloody clever to achieve it, that goes without saying (but I'm saying it now to avoid confusion! ) All I was trying to say was that its dangerous for anyone else to assume it would work for them, although it may do so. But they wouldn't necessarily know. Its one thing for your H to do his research and really know why his formula worked, it would possibly be rather different for someone trying to apply the formula without understanding all that lies behind it, and that's where the potential dangers lie.

I've read a lot of posts where someone says something like "this is the way this is done" or "this is the law" because it was true in their case. So they are indeed perfectly correct. In other cases or other circumstances, that would be the wrong advice, but people don't always realise that, they assume the law is clear and logical and consistent . Your formula may work perfectly for most policemen, but it may not work for all policemen, and then other schemes will be very different again, but not everyone realises that: I know that from my last few months regularly posting in this forum. I wander round here occasionally to try to point out when those sorts of things arise and to try to help people to avoid confusing themselves, not to try to score points off people. I didn't do it very well this time.

So, generally, with no reference to Louise11's situation, may I just observe that most judges won't even look at something on pensions unless its an actuarial report. One did, but most won't. I'm not supporting that view. Just alerting those who are reading this to the sometimes harsh realities of litigation.

I wouldn't want anyone to assume that they could rely on a judge accepting your calculation instead of an actuarial report, because they'd be likely to get a nasty shock, even if the reality was that if there was a report it'd come to the same figure...

And I'd like to see your calculation, because this is a minefield area for so many people, and anything that adds to my knowledge is much welcomed.

And just for general comment, it is possible to find actuaries who can both do the clever maths, and speak english at the end of it so you get a report that is accurate AND useful in achieving a settlement. They're not that hard to find if you look.

I'm going back into my bunker now in case this didn't come across as being as conciliatory as I hoped. But I'll keep reading.

Hi Active8

ROFL I am so like my avatar except I have blonde hair not red and a few more wrinkles than her!

Pensions are a nightmare and it still seems there is no easy way of dealing with them 12 months later after I left this site.
You would of thought someone, anyone, would of sorted them by now would'nt you?

I feel I must point out some facts in our case here, which are important for anyone on this pension path.....


Number one..........You must both agree to have a joint report done and ask the pension actuary any questions you feel benefits you....

Our case... as my partners ex wife paid for the report to be done ( a Judge said at one hearing, my partner did not have to pay, another story) it was so biased towards her it was untrue. Her Lawyers only asked questions of the expert that benefitted their client, but in doing so the Judge at the FH adjourned the hearing because the report that had been prepared was extremely biased towards ex wife and details were omitted from the report, which would of clearly impacted on the true value.

The report also did not take me into account, his new wife of three years. The Judge said that since they were divorced some four years earlier and the absolute had been finalised, she lost all rights to the widows part of the pension as that now belonged to me, his new wife! The actuary was asked to provide valuation of the widows part of the pension as this needed to be taken into account and removed from the pension fund.

Moral........ Dont get an absolute until the finances are sorted out!

The next biggest flaw in the actuaries report was that it assumed my husband had done 25 years service when in fact he had done 22/23 (cant remember exact details)but will do when I find all the documents.
A police pension starts off for the first 20 years at 1/60ith and then increases at 2/60iths.

Also another thing folks forget is that both his and her pensions are taken into account to get to a fair 50/50 agreement then both are valued, with the smaller pension holder receiving a top up from the largest pot to make up the shortfall. Do not forget spouses can have pensions too and should be taken into account no matter how small.

Another reason why all this took so long and I believe a Solicitor should have a duty to point out to any greedy party they are representing, who does not understand the complex pension reports, is that when they value a CETV it does not mean it is a cash lump sum!!

The begining of all this for us, ment his ex wife had a piece of paper in her hand that said his CETV was worth 160k at time of divorce and she would not budge from expecting less than a lump sum of 80K CASH! After the actuary got hold of it the paper then said the CETV was worth 340k, and boy was she laughing!!! Her offer then went upto nothing less than a lump sum off 170k! AND still she wanted 80% of his pension!

OMG I could go on for hours I may sit down one day and write a blog and get it all off my chest! It would make interesting reading though! lol

What I will say to anyone though is this.....
Since I left this site to put everything behind us and move forward is that I have made such a success of the business I left to concentrate on, that I have never looked back, and the percentage value she eventually got is absolutely NOTHING to what I have earn't since, may she live long enough to receive it, but had she been a fair and a nice person and not greedy she would of received 50% what my husband orignally offered instead of the paltry 30% that cost her THIRTY THOUSAND pounds by being represented by unscrupulous Solicitors who guess what??? Represented her in the sale of her house to pay their exorbitant fees! And now bless, she lives in a nice little caravan looking forward to her pension in 15 years time!

It all depends on whether you value happiness over money to be honest. But all good things come to those who wait.

Will sort the papers out over the weekend and get back to you all.

Kind ones
Louise.

For anyone following this post, apart from fun of watching a solicitor being virtually dismembered by Louise11, may I just say that I wholly endorse the points above about the trials and tribulations of dealing with pensions.

I think the main points of L11's I'd like to underline from my own experiences are as follows:-

- Always try to have JOINT reports: apart from anything else, the court rules don't allow you to just put in anything you want with experts, the court has to say its OK. And if you get your own report, the other side may ­object­ to the court saying yes and you may end up with a report you can't use. Different courts have different approaches, so don't assume that because L11's Husband's ex got her report in front of a court, it would necessarily be allowed in any case.

- Be sensible about what you ask an actuary to put in the report. In L11's case she says it looked obviously biased: well that's not going to impress a halfway sensible judge is it? As was clearly the case here, it can backfire, expensively.
The actuary isn't any sort of lawyer, he's a sort of complicated accountant/mathematician, and he's just doing whatever job he is paid to do. Its no part of his work to say whether what you are asking him to put in is going to help or hinder your case, that's down to the lawyers. Be sensible. If the report is joint it is likely you'll each be restrained from excess by the other's solicitor limiting any extreme suggestions, which is no bad thing.

- This sounds bad but its true: try, as best you can, to make sure your solicitor knows what they are talking about. Pensions are complicated. Not all solicitors understand them as they should but generally don't like to say so, or seek advice from a more knowledgeable colleague or an IFA who might guide them. A solicitor who doesn't know enough, giving instructions to an actuary, is going to produce a less than ideal report, possibly a positively unhelpful report: see L11's situation. If you have doubts, get your solicitor to check what they are intending to ask with a pensions IFA or someone who clearly does pensions work regularly. It may be a small additional cost but pensions are worth hundreds of thousands ££ in many cases. But even better is to choose your solicitor very carefully to start with. The Xwife in L11's case doesn't sound as if she was being well advised.

- Do be very cautious about not having decree absolute, if you can control this, before you have worked out what is happening about pensions. Before DA you are still a potential widow(er), after DA you have no right to a spouse's pension unless and until you get a pension sharing order: that gap can be very dangerous... Things happen (including the spouse remarrying). You can't get a pension sharing order if the pension owner has died.

And pensions are never likely to get any simpler to manage, unfortunately. But approached sensibly, they don't have to be a big problem. They are just an asset to be split, like other assets. Just remember that unlike other assets, they have a very particular set of rules and characteristics all of their own.

Hurray for sensible and well-informed lawyers and in particular Active8!

I cannot and would not argue with any of his points. If his post does not become a “Wiki sticky” post, the Wiki community will be all the poorer.

P

Hint taken, sticky set

This is my first post.

Just to say thank you to the contributors above for taking the time to put down such useful information.

I too am a policeman, in the process of divorce. As has been stated, pensions are anything but simple.

But as laid out above, there are many things to consider:
In my case, I have a pension in payment and had earned more than 1/2 of my pension rights before we married. From what has been said above, that does matter.

My STBX also has a pension - small, but presumably that will have to be valued as well, to get a 'proper' value.

I have obtained a CETV, which by my rough calculations is about right - allowing for the lump sum I have received and my prospective life expectancy.

I want a 'clean break' and intend to offset my pension against the house equity. Seems that is a common thing to do.

Questions I need answered though:
As was pointed out. A pension is NOT a lump sum. Only a part of it can be. The rest is paid out later, whilst you are alive.
If I die, will she continue to get a pension if we have a pension sharing order?

Do the courts view the CETV as a 'lump sum' or an income if it is in payment. Or both?

Hope someone knows the answers