Southdown 2026 - Blog by Paul Gorman

NHS Pensioners & the McCloud Remedy

Tue, 21 Jul 2026 13:41:33 +0000

The latest dates for Remedial Service Statements

NHS Pensions has confirmed two separate timelines based on the different circumstances of retired members.

These timelines reflect how pension benefits are currently being treated under the Remedy:

Timeline 1: Members Receiving 2015 Scheme Benefits

Expected receipt of RSS statement: End of December 2027

This applies to members who:

● Are currently receiving 2015 Scheme benefits (for all or part of the remedy period), OR

● Retired before 1 October 2023 and built up pension in the 2015 Scheme during the remedy period

This group includes most members whose benefits are likely to change due to the remedy. Their RSS will show them whether switching to 1995/2008 scheme benefits would be advantageous.

Timeline 2: Members Already Receiving 1995/2008 Scheme Benefits

Expected receipt of RSS statement: End of June 2030

This applies to members who:

● Had their pension returned to the 1995/2008 Scheme on 1 October 2023 (for these members, discrimination has already been addressed), OR

● Moved to the 2015 Scheme on 1 April 2022 or retired before doing so

Members in this category will often see little or no change to their current benefits, though individual outcomes vary. They will still receive an RSS with the option to switch to 2015 Scheme benefits if they choose.

The Uncertainty Continues

McCloud has created significant problems for divorcing couples and those involved in pensions on divorce work and the uncertainty continues for NHS Retired Members who are affected by the Remedy. Until an affected member receives their RSS, the true value of their pension is unknown.

If the parties are considering pension sharing as a means of settlement, they should note that where a CEV statement for a retired member has been issued before the RSS has been issued and an election made, the CEV could alter once an election has been made (particularly if the alternative option is chosen), which would then impact on the pension credit awarded to the ex-spouse.

We understand that NHS Pensions will not hold up pension sharing implementation, but if the member makes a different remedy choice post-divorce than that assumed at the time the CEV is prepared for pension sharing purposes, they will retrospectively adjust the benefits for the pension credit member and the original scheme member once the remedy choice has been made.

The issue here is that it could mean that the percentage share in the Annex is calculated based on terms different to what the member may choose shortly after the divorce has been finalised, the eventual outcome for each party may differ to what was agreed.

A practical step to consider in any financial settlement involving a retired NHS member who hasn't received their RSS is to flag this as early as possible in financial settlement discussions and to consider what if any flexibility can practically be built into negotiations and settlements.

Instant Fee Estimates for Pension on Divorce Reports

Thu, 09 Jul 2026 06:57:46 +0000

Obtaining a Pension on Divorce Report from a PODE is often a necessary step in financial remedy proceedings, but getting a fee estimate for one has traditionally involved an enquiry, a wait for a response, and sometimes further back-and-forth before a figure is confirmed. For solicitors and mediators working to court timetables or trying to keep a matter moving, that delay can be an unwelcome friction point in an otherwise straightforward request.

What Our Fee Estimate Tool Does

Our Instant Fee Estimate service for Pension on Divorce Reports is a way for solicitors, mediators and people acting in person to get a fee estimate for a report quickly, before or as part of instructing us to prepare a report.

It is a simple three step process:

Step One: Enter the relevant details for the report outcomes you seek
Step Two: Receive an instant fee estimate online
Step Three: If you require a formal written estimate by email, enter your name, (firm if appropriate) and email, and the estimate is sent straight to your inbox, for your file or for onward use with your client

All outputs are produced immediately, without needing to wait for a response from our administration team.

Why this matters

In financial remedy work, we appreciate timing matters. Court directions, client expectations, and the pace of negotiations all depend on information being available when it's needed. An instant estimate means you can give a client a cost indication in the same conversation in which a Pension on Divorce Report is first discussed, rather than waiting for a reply to an enquiry.

The formal written estimate serves a different but related purpose. Where you need something in writing — for your own records, for a costs discussion, or simply for certainty — it is generated and delivered automatically.

Try Our New Tool Now

PPF and FAS Members Set to Benefit from The Pension Schemes Act

Fri, 12 Jun 2026 07:54:59 +0000

Recent changes introduced through the new legislation are set to enhance benefits for many members of the Pension Protection Fund (PPF) and the Financial Assistance Scheme (FAS), while also helping to reduce costs for levy payers.

The changes represent a significant step forward, strengthening member outcomes and providing greater flexibility for schemes with surplus assets.

One of the most important changes introduced by the Act concerns inflation increases on pension benefits earned before 1997.

Historically, pensions in payment relating to pre-1997 service did not receive inflationary increases through the PPF, even where the original occupational pension scheme provided such protection. Under the new legislation, the PPF will now be able to apply future inflation increases of up to 2.5% per annum to these benefits where the original scheme rules included inflation protection.

Broadly, two groups of members are expected to benefit.

1. Members Whose Original Scheme Rules Included Pre-1997 Indexation

Many occupational pension schemes provided inflation increases on pension benefits earned before 1997. Where these increases were required under the original scheme rules, members will, in most cases, begin to receive annual increases of up to 2.5% on all of their pre-1997 benefits through the PPF or FAS.

The PPF estimates that this change will benefit approximately:

180,000 current PPF members, and
85,000 current FAS members.

For many pensioners, this represents a valuable enhancement to their retirement income and provides additional protection against the effects of inflation.

2. Members with Post-1988 Guaranteed Minimum Pension (GMP) Indexation Only

Some schemes provided inflation increases only on Guaranteed Minimum Pension (GMP) benefits accrued between 6 April 1988 and 5 April 1997, with no increases applying to other pre-1997 pension rights.

Guaranteed Minimum Pension is the minimum level of pension that contracted-out occupational schemes were required to provide. Under the new legislation, members of these schemes will generally become entitled to inflation increases on the relevant post-1988 GMP element of their pension through the PPF or FAS.

The PPF expects this change to affect approximately:

39,000 current PPF members, and
27,000 current FAS members.

How Can Members Check Whether Their Scheme Is Eligible?

The PPF has published a list of schemes whose members may qualify for these additional increases. Members who believe they may be affected should consult the list or await further communication from the PPF or FAS, which expects to begin writing to affected members during the summer.

A list of all eligible schemes can be found here: https://www.ppf.co.uk/our-members/pre97-schemes

How will this impact on PODE Reports ?

Where a PPF member belongs to a scheme that is eligible we will factor into our calculations these changes

Implementation Already Underway

Work to implement the new measures has already begun, and the PPF has confirmed that it intends to start writing to affected members during the summer. Members who may benefit from the changes can therefore expect further communication in the coming months.

These reforms represent a welcome development for many pensioners, delivering improved benefits and ensuring that members receive protection more closely aligned with the promises made under their original pension schemes.

Changes to Public Sector Scheme CEV Calculations

Wed, 27 May 2026 09:10:55 +0000

The Background

The Government announced on 19 May 2026 that the discount rate that public sector schemes use to calculate Cash Equivalent Values (CEVs), and by extension pension credit benefits, has increased. This means that the actuarial factors prepared by the Government Actuary Department (GAD) and used by PODEs such as ourselves, are subject to change. The GAD has currently suspended calculation of all CEVs for pensions on divorce, and the new factors will follow in due course.

What is the expected impact ?

Broadly, the change means that CEVs calculated for pension on divorce will reduce.

The reduction will vary by a number of factors, but in simplified terms could lead to reductions of up to around c4%for members at or very close to retirement age and c10% for members within20 years of retirement (and broadly something in between for members somewhere between 0 and 20 years from retirement).

Implications if the member spouse has any public sector pensions

The change means that, for any pension share that is due to be implemented after the new factors come into force, the CEV(s) used for implementation will be lower (by broadly the amounts discussed above) compared to those calculated using the ‘old’ factors (i.e. those in force prior to the announcement yesterday) – all other things being the same.

However, it is worth noting that as most¹ public sector schemes only permit internal pension sharing, then the change will also impact the factors used to calculate pension credit benefits in broadly the opposing direction for internal shares.

This means that for an internal pension share, overall, a lower CEV may still give rise to a similar level of pension credit and therefore the calculated pension share(s) are likely to be similar to if recalculated on the new factors.

But…the position is a little more nuanced

However, there will be cases where this does not hold true, most notably where:

There is a material age gap between the parties, as the CEV factor depends on the member spouse’s age and the pension credit factor depends on the ex-spouse's age, and these will not always move by the same amount.

There is a material gap between the age when the member spouse’s pension beneﬁts come into payment and the age when the ex-spouse’s pension credit beneﬁts come into payment (most typically this will be in the uniformed schemes).
The share is calculated assuming an external transfer in certain LGPS² cases. In such cases the ex-spouse receives a share of a lower CEV (compared to the same CEV calculated on the old factors). The change is also likely to make external implementation of pension credits arising from the LGPS slightly less beneﬁcial.
The interaction with the McCloud remedy and the new factors gives rise to additional complexities and considerations (in practice likely to be rare edge cases).

It’s worth noting that in practice, a change in figures arising from any of the above, may still not be material in the overall context of pension sharing outcomes. However, we raise these as additional points to consider when discussing with your clients.

Is that everything ?

The change is likely to impact other factors, such as those used to adjust benefits paid early or late, but is generally anticipated to have a more modest impact on overall results. The true impact, however, will only be known with the benefit of the updated factors.

Implications if the ex-spouse only has public sector pensions which are not being shared

While the change would reduce the CEV calculated in respect of public sector benefits, the change does not directly impact the actual income (and/or lump sum), and so is not expected to have a material impact on outcomes (whether we are assessing income or capital).

What should you do for ongoing cases ?

Largely business as usual, as in many cases the change is likely to be broadly neutral on the calculated pension sharing outcomes.

However, it is worth taking into account the cases described above where this may not be the case.

1 The Local Government Pension Scheme is the exception as it offers the choice between an internal pension credit and an external transfer as well.

2 Depending on facts and circumstances of each case, as it may be more beneficial to both parties to implement an internal share, in which case similar arguments discussed for other public sector schemes

Who can be instructed as a PODE ?

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

What does PAG 2 say ?

What Does PAG 2 Say?

If you're new to the term PAG 2, it refers to A Guide to the Treatment of Pensions on Divorce (Second Edition) — an invaluable resource designed to strengthen interprofessional working, establish a shared understanding of the law, and ultimately improve outcomes for individuals navigating pensions issues during divorce.

When it comes to understanding who qualifies as a PODE (Pensions on Divorce Expert), PAG 2 is the go-to reference. Appendix C of the guide sets out clearly that PODEs acting as a Single Joint Expert must bring high levels of technical knowledge and experience, alongside the ability to communicate complex information clearly to a wide range of readers.

PODEs come from a variety of professional backgrounds, including:

Actuaries who are members of and regulated by the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries (IFoA)
Actuaries who sit outside the IFoA's regulatory framework
Independent Financial Advisers (IFAs) regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and approved by the Chartered Insurance Institute and/or the Chartered Institute for Securities & Investment
Financial Planners and former Financial Advisers who are not FCA-regulated
Members of the Academy of Experts or the Expert Witness Institute, both of which maintain their own codes of practice and complaints procedures
Other practitioners who, while not fitting neatly into the above categories, can demonstrate the knowledge and expertise needed to carry out PODE work

It's worth noting that there is currently no formal professional qualification or regulatory system specifically for PODEs. That said, PAG 2 does offer thoughtful recommendations around regulation, indemnity insurance, standards, and competencies. It's also important to remember that not all PODEs produce expert reports for the courts — many provide other valuable support, such as acting as a shadow expert, serving as a Financial Neutral, or assisting with the implementation of Pension Sharing Orders.

Our PODEs

We're proud to have six PODEs at Southdown, each bringing a distinct professional background, breadth of experience, and range of affiliations. We genuinely believe this diversity is one of our greatest strengths — it allows us to draw on a rich mix of perspectives and apply our extensive combined knowledge when shaping the standards and processes that underpin every report we produce.

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

Regulation, Indemnity, Standards & Competencies

PAG 2 makes clear recommendations in each of these areas, all of which we wholeheartedly endorse and have embedded into how we work:

Regulation: Every one of our PODEs holds membership with a recognised professional body — either the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries or the Chartered Insurance Institute — meaning we are all bound by formal rules of professional conduct.

Indemnity: We maintain Professional Indemnity Insurance specifically covering the nature of our work, with a limit of liability of £2 million.

Standards: We operate a 100% peer review process, ensuring that every report is reviewed by at least one other PODE before it is issued.

Competencies: All of our PODEs engage in ongoing, relevant Continuing Professional Development (CPD) to stay current with the latest developments in this specialist area.

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.

A Final Word

Before instructing a PODE, we would encourage those making that instruction to take a little time to gather enough information to feel confident that the firm and individual being instructed has the appropriate knowledge, is willing to self-certify, and can provide evidence — where needed — of professional body membership, indemnity cover, and the standards and processes they follow.

I hope this overview has been helpful in clarifying who can be instructed as a PODE. If anything here has prompted further questions, please don't hesitate to get in touch — I'd be very happy to help.

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.