Southdown 2026 - Blog by Paul Gorman

Who can be instructed as a PODE ?

Thu, 02 Oct 2025 11:14:13 +0000

What does PAG 2 say ?

For readers not familiar with the term, when I say PAG2, I am referring to A Guide to the Treatment of Pensions on Divorce (Second Edition). The key aim of PAG 2 is to improve interprofessional working, provide a consensus on the law and improve practice and, most importantly, improve outcomes for individuals involved in the resolution of pensions issues on divorce.

The guide is perhaps the best resource available when it comes to answering the question of who can be instructed as a PODE to prepare a report for pensions on divorce, with Appendix C of the guide saying:

Pensions on Divorce Experts (PODEs) acting as a Single Joint Expert are required to have high levels of technical knowledge, experience and have good communication skills in order to convey complex information to a variety of readers. PODEs come from a range of professional backgrounds and have varying professional affiliations. These include:

Actuaries who are members of and are regulated by the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries (IFoA);
Actuaries who are not members of the IFoA and who therefore fall outside its regulatory system;
Independent Financial Advisers (IFAs) who are regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and approved to practice by the Chartered Insurance Institute and/ or the Chartered Institute for Securities & Investment;
Financial Planners and former Financial Advisers who are not regulated by the FCA;
Members of the Academy of Experts or the Expert Witness Institute, which are not professional bodies but have codes of practice and complaints procedures;
Others who do not fall into any of the above categories, but hold themselves out as having, possibly with good justification, the necessary knowledge and expertise to carry out PODE work.

There is currently no professional qualification or regulatory system for PODEs but PAG 2 does make some recommendations regarding regulation, indemnity insurance, standards and competencies. Not all PODEs provide expert reports for the courts but may provide other support such as acting as a shadow expert, acting as a Financial Neutral or helping with implementation of Pension Sharing Orders.

Our PODEs

We now have four PODEs at Southdown, with a range of professional backgrounds, experience and professional affiliations. We do believe this diversity is very much a strength, enabling us to draw on different experiences and applying our extensive combined knowledge when shaping our standards and processes for preparing and issuing all reports.

My background and also Ian's is rooted in financial planning, with us both having a particular focus on pensions on divorce related work. Scott is a Chartered Actuary (Fellow) coming from a pensions consultancy background. Since joining Southdown, Luke has gained the necessary knowledge and expertise to carry out PODE work.

Regulation, Indemnity, Standards & Competencies

PAG2 makes some recommendations on all of the above, which we endorse and have adopted:

Regulation:

All of our PODEs are members of a professional body, be that the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries or the Chartered Insurance Institute, meaning we are all subject to rules of professional conduct.

Indemnity:

We have in place Professional Indemnity Insurance that covers the nature of our work, with a limit of liability of £2m.

Standards:

We adopt a 100% peer review process, meaning that all reports before being issued are reviewed by at least one other PODE. For example, all reports prepared by Luke are peer reviewed by either Me, Scott or Ian and all reports prepared by Scott are peer reviewed by Ian, Luke or myself. The same applies to Ian and I.

Competencies:

All of our PODEs engage in appropriate Continuing Professional Development (CPD) in order to keep up with current issues.

Self Certification

We also endorse the recommendation in Appendix D of PAG2 that all PODEs are willing and consider themselves able to certify that they have the competencies relevant to each case they prepare a report for.

To Conclude

Before instructing a PODE, the person(s) making the instruction, should ideally gather sufficient information to allow them to be satisfied that the firm and PODE being instructed has appropriate knowledge, is willing to self certify this and can provide evidence of, if felt necessary, membership of professional bodies, indemnity and company standards and processes.

I hope this overview on who can be instructed is helpful. If questions arise from this, please do get in touch with me.

Why we check Public Sector CEVs

Tue, 02 Sep 2025 18:30:27 +0000

Public Sector pension schemes have gone through significant change over recent years, primarily as a result of the McCloud Judgment that addressed unlawful age discrimination.

Remedy Period Calculations

As a result of these changes, public sector pension scheme administrators have to carry out additional calculations for anyone affected by the Public Service Pension Scheme remedy, as they have to consider whether remedy period benefits based upon legacy scheme benefits or CARE scheme benefits result in a higher CEV. It is the higher CEV that has to be provided for divorce purposes.

It is important to note that the outcome of these calculations may change in the future. It is at the point of retirement when an individual will be able to choose between the terms of the legacy and reformed scheme. However, it is established practice to take the higher CEV for divorce purposes – noting that a CEV is an estimate of the value of a member’s benefits at a particular point in time.

Additional work for administrators

We are very conscious of the extra layer of work for scheme administrators as well as the further complexity, hence, we believe it appropriate to take a safety first approach and look at verifying the CEV that has been calculated by the scheme. We want to be confident that we are working with accurate information. We have access to the schemes actuarial factors and guidance notes (published by the Government Actuary Department - GAD) on how to calculate CEVs to carry out these verification checks.

In the vast majority of cases, we can reconcile the CEVs that are shown on the CEV and benefit statements. This provides reassurance for us and all involved and we will confirm this verification in our reports. Occasionally, however, we do come across instances where we cannot verify a CEV based upon the benefit information supplied. Often this is because not all Public Sector schemes provide the necessary breakdown of pre and post remedy benefits.

Recent case highlighting the importance of checking

We had such a situation recently, involving the NHS Pension Scheme 1995/2008.

The information provided in the CEV statement confirmed that a higher CEV was achieved if remedy period benefits were based upon the legacy scheme - i.e. NHS Pension Scheme 1995/2008. We carried out our sense check to try to reconcile the CEV shown and could not match what was shown. What made matters worse was a looming FDR date.

Our calculation resulted in a CEV that was just 46% of the value shown in the statement - not an insignificant difference.

We raised the query with the instructing solicitors and asked for it to be checked by NHSBA.

They did so and NHSBA came back to us confirming that the CEV was correct.

We remained unconvinced and looked again at our calculations and got the same discrepancy and reported back to our instructing solicitors, providing a breakdown of our calculations, asking again if they could refer back to NHSBA and for NHSBA to provide us with a breakdown of how they arrived at the CEV. NHSBA did provide a full breakdown of their calculations and how they arrived at the CEV and in doing so it became clear what mistakes they had made. They quite rightly acknowledged their errors.

It is worthy of note that NHSBA were very quick with their response, which helped us being able to prepare and issue this report in good time for the court hearing.

Balancing further information and additional delays for individuals

When we come across situations where we cannot perfectly reconcile benefits, we first consider how material it is likely to be to the calculations we have been asked to carry out in the letter of instruction. If we take the view, in the overall context, it is unlikely to be material, we will typically not let this hold up the progress of the report but we will inform all parties of our findings when preparing our report.

Inconsistencies do tend to be rare, yet this case highlights the importance of these sense checks and we will continue to carry them out.

Gathering data

From a data gathering perspective, while it is does not happen very often, we are occasionally provided with a breakdown of CEV calculations. In the main, however, we receive just a CEV statement that includes benefits accrued. It may not always be the case that these type of queries can be resolved quickly. In an attempt to avoid situations like this, in addition to the parties obtaining an up to date CEV statement, requesting a breakdown of the calculations could well prove useful, the information will be there, it simply needs to be asked for.

Get Started Now

What is a PODE ?

Wed, 13 Aug 2025 08:46:29 +0000

"Two Out of Three Ain't Bad"

The vast majority of the instructions we receive come to us from family lawyers. We also, and are happy to do so, receive instructions directly from the respective parties going through a divorce - many of which have been recommended to contact us via a mediator or financial professional.

The term PODE is not one that I expect a divorcing couple will have been familiar with prior to entering financial discussions on how to deal with their pensions and while for those working with a family law professional will have received an explanation, it is the norm these days for us all to use the power of AI, Google or some other search engine to find out more, seek clarity or get a further opinion. So, I thought I would do just that for the term PODE to see what turned up.

A search on Google in AI mode:

In the context of divorce proceedings in the UK, a PODE stands for Pension on Divorce Expert

Here's a breakdown of what that means:

Pensions are often a significant asset in a marriage, and dividing them fairly upon divorce can be incredibly complex.
A PODE is a specialist financial expert, often an actuary or pension consultant, who provides impartial analysis and advice specifically related to the valuation and division of pensions in family law cases.
Their role is to assist solicitors, mediators, and the courts in understanding the true value and long-term impact of pension assets, especially when dealing with different types of schemes or when a simple split might not be equitable.
PODEs provide reports that outline various options for dividing pension benefits (like pension sharing or offsetting) and the potential impact of those options on each party's long-term financial security.
They do not provide financial advice to either party but rather offer a neutral assessment to help in reaching a fair settlement.
The Pension Advisory Group (PAG) provides guidance on when a PODE is necessary, generally recommending their involvement in cases where pensions are significant or complex.
Their expertise is crucial for ensuring that pension assets are properly valued, considering factors like inflation, retirement age, and the complexities of different pension schemes like defined benefit vs. defined contribution plans.

Asking ChatGPT:

The term PODE can have different meanings depending on the context. Here are a few common interpretations:

1. Planned Order of Development and Execution (in project management or defense)

Used in military or defense contexts.
Describes the sequence in which capabilities or systems will be developed and deployed.
Helps in managing complex programs with multiple components.

2. Polyoxymethylene Dimethyl Ether (in chemistry/fuels)

A class of compounds also known as oxymethylene ethers (OMEs).
Used as clean synthetic fuels, especially in diesel engines, because they produce lower soot emissions.

3. Point of Departure Estimate (in policy or planning)

A starting assumption or estimate used for planning or modeling.
Often found in economic forecasts, climate models, or policy analysis.

4. Podé (in Portuguese)

In informal Brazilian Portuguese, "pode" means "can" or "may" (from the verb poder).
Example: "Ele pode ir." = "He can go."

Asking CoPilot:

A PODE stands for Pension on Divorce Expert. It's a specialist role in family law proceedings in England and Wales, particularly when dealing with the division of pension assets during divorce or the dissolution of a civil partnership.

What Does a PODE Do?

Provides independent analysis of pension assets in divorce cases.
Helps the court and solicitors understand the true value and long-term impact of pensions.
Prepares expert reports to guide fair pension-sharing outcomes.
Compares different types of pensions, such as defined benefit vs. defined contribution schemes.

Why Is a PODE Important?

Pensions can be complex and vary widely in value and benefits.
Cash Equivalent Values (CEVs) don’t always reflect the actual retirement income.
A PODE ensures both parties receive a fair share, especially in needs-based cases where retirement income equality is the goal.

Who Can Be a PODE?

Often actuaries or pension consultants.
No single qualification or professional body governs PODEs.
Must remain impartial and report to the court, not advise either party directly

Top marks go to Google and Copilot. With ChatGPT listing common interpretations, it should come as no surprised that none of the meanings listed match what we do. After all, our work is rather niche with only a relative small number of firms focusing in this area of work.

Increasingly, we rely heavily on the power of AI and other search options and in the context of my quick search, the power ballad from the 1970's sums things up quite nicely. In the words of Meat Loaf "now don't be sad, cause two out of three ain't bad"

Options available for Pensions on Divorce

Thu, 19 Dec 2024 08:34:05 +0000

Options available for Pensions on Divorce

There are typically three options open to consideration when looking at how to deal with pensions on divorce. These are pension sharing, pension attachment or offsetting. Below, we take a brief look at each in turn and highlight the main pro's and con's

Pension Sharing Orders:

Pension sharing is one of the options available on divorce or the dissolution of a civil partnership. It provides a clean break between the parties as the pension assets are split immediately upon implementation of a pension sharing order. This means that each party can decide what to do with their share independently

How do they work?

The Court will issue a pension sharing order (PSO) which states how much of the pension, the ex-spouse or partner is entitled to receive. The amount is expressed as a percentage of the cash equivalent value(s) of the pension(s) that are to be split.

For example, if the value of the pension was £100,000, a 50% share would give each person £50,000 each.

A Defined Benefit pension arrangements may offer two options for sharing: -

An Internal Share – where the ex-spouse has benefits established within the same scheme that the share is coming from.

An External Share – where the ex-spouse has to transfer the value awarded by a Pension Sharing Order into a pension in their own name – this will be a defined contribution arrangement.

Public Sector schemes offer an Internal Share and most Private Sector schemes will only offer an external share.

A Defined Contribution schemes will typically only offer an external share.

Pros and cons of pension sharing

Pros

· It achieves a clean break as far as pensions are concerned.

· It can help to make sure that both parties have some pension provision in retirement.

· Remarriage, death, or other change in circumstances will not affect the order.

Cons

· There will usually be a fee to pay to the pension scheme provider to implement an order.

· It might be difficult to split some pensions e.g. those that contain illiquid assets like commercial property.

· There may be additional complications with tax and the Lifetime Allowance.

Attachment Orders:

A pension attachment order redirect’s part or all of the member’s pension benefits to the ex-spouse or civil partner when it comes to be paid.

This doesn’t provide a clean break, as an ongoing link with your ex-spouse or civil partner will remain.

How do they work?

Pension attachment allows the courts to make an order stating that part, or all, of the member’s pension benefits (excluding state pension benefits) must be paid to their ex-partner when they become payable. The pension still belongs to the scheme member, but the scheme must make some form of payment to the ex-partner when the member’s benefits become payable.

The court can order that the ex-partner receives one, or a combination, of the following benefits:

· all or part of the member’s pension income (this doesn’t apply in Scotland)

· all or part of the member’s tax-free cash sum

· all or part of any lump sum paid in when the member dies.

Taxable income payable to an ex-partner still belongs to the member, so will be taxed as if it’s being paid to the member. Payments won’t count as taxable income for the ex-partner and shouldn’t need to be declared as income for tax purposes to HMRC.

Pros and cons

Pros

· It allows for both the tax-free cash benefit and the pension income benefit to be earmarked.

· Death-in-service benefits can also be earmarked.

· If the member transfers pension rights, the earmarking order will follow the member’s rights to the new arrangement.

· The ex-partner will have some provision in retirement.

Cons

· It doesn’t allow a clean break between the couple, and the couple might need to keep in touch for many years after the divorce/dissolution.

· There’s uncertainty about the eventual payment of the benefits. If the scheme member dies before retiring, or if the ex-partner marries or forms a civil partnership, any earmarking/attachment order (other than for lump sum death benefits) usually falls away.

· The earmarked payments don’t start being paid until the member retires. And there’s no particular date they have to start taking income. If the ex-partner is older than the member or if the member delays their retirement, this might have financial implications for the ex-partner.

· The payments stop on the member’s death, leaving the ex-partner without that income for the last years of their life.

The drawbacks of this option has meant that attachment orders are rarely used.

Offsetting

When divorcing or dissolving your civil partnership, all your assets and those of your ex-partner are taken into account. If you decide to opt for pension offsetting, each party keeps their pension assets. But these are then offset against the other assets – for example, if one person has a large pension pot, the other might retain the house.

An offsetting calculation may be deemed necessary to help put a fair value on pension assets not shared.

Pros and Cons

Pros

· It keeps things simple.

· One party might need to use other assets (for example, a home). It can be hard to value some assets as their values might change at different rates.

· If the pension is small, making a pension sharing order could be expensive and might not be cost-effective. It can be difficult in some situations to divide assets fairly using pension offsetting, especially as the value of a person’s pension schemes might, in the long run, be their most valuable asset.

· Offsetting is not affected by remarriage or death.

· This might be a good option if there are overseas pension assets that need to be split, as these cannot be shared via a UK court order.

Cons

· One person might be left with little or no provision for retirement.

· It can be hard to value some assets as their values might change at different rates.

· It can be difficult in some situations to divide assets fairly using pension offsetting, especially as the value of a person’s pension schemes might, in the long run, be their most valuable asset.