Off-setting Pensions

A thought crossed my mind this morning as I contemplated whether to instruct a solicitor to act on my behalf as a potential respondant (not received petition yet) or whether to do a bit of self repping, using a solicitor for advice.

So I rang a solicitor and asked what their view was on off-setting pensions, as this would obviously affect my decision, as I have a large pension fund i.e. pound for pound or 25% (maskell vs maskell?). The response was 'it depends who I am representing'

They said that if they were representing the petitioner they would argue £4£ whereas acting for the respondant they would go the % route.

This somehow doesn't sit right with me even though they would argue the % route on my behalf. I can ask a solicitor for advice and get a different answer depending upon which side of the fence I am, so to speak.

This in my eyes is not advice but just doing whatever the client wants. If this is the 'advice' my other half is getting the future looks bleak for getting a mutually agreeable outcome without protracted to-ing and fro-ing, as mediation has been ruled out for now (too emotive a subject at the the moment).

Am I missing something here or is this just plain wrong?

Hi there

I am sorry you had this advice and it would appear you have perhaps considered that this isnt the solicitor for you.

Turning to your substantive question, whether you aregue pound for pound or offset at a percentage depends on the ages of the parties and when the pension is going to come into play. The sooner it is the more percentage or closer to pound for pound you are, the longer away it is the lower the percentage figure. For instance, if you are both say early 40s, offsetting at aroud 25% is probably close to right, if you are nearly 60 then pound for pound has to be considered on the lump sum and other considerations would attach to the income stream (i.e. would it be better used as a maintenance stream).

While the law is there to be argued, in some cases it is unarguable on the facts of a case (if that makes sense) and a lawyer taking this approach is perhaps being somewhat disingenious and would appear to be only setting the parties up for one unholy expensive row that can only end in court.


Amanda

Thanks for the reply DL and yes even though they would argue the case for a % to benefit me it irks me that they seem to have these double standards and I will look elsewhere.

I'm not really sure what to expect when it comes to offsetting.

I took a voluntary severance package and part of the package was an additional payment into my fund by the company, pension frozen, lump sum payable at 50 and an annual pension from 50 (3 years away). That is if I choose to take the pension at 50 and not defer it if I am still in full time employment.

At the moment I am contracting and can see the contract being extended for maybe 1 more year after this so at present i am earning quite well. I do expect my income to drop after that as I suspect my skills will not be in demand (hope I'm wrong).

So I'm not really sure how potential early payment of pensions due to severance packages will be treated as the decision about when to take it rests with me (I think).

For example could I offer the cash lump sum payable in 3 years time to my other half as part of the settlement?

Hi there

They may have been keen to argue it...but on what you say they would have been unlikely to suceed!

You can offer a deferred lump sum, if that is what you wish to do.

In terms of what the court can do when it is your choice as and when to take the pension, there are numerous options which would have to be considered in light of the other matrimonial assets.

Amanda

DL - I appreciate the reply and I will need to digest the significance of what you say.

Regardless of offsetting I expect some form of pension sharing to be used but obviously I am keen to keep as much of my future pension intact whilst trying to be reasonable in terms of a settlement.

Hi there

Pension sharing is not the way forward in every case - it is rather a blunt tool. If there are ways to offset with other assets and/or a deferred lump sum, that can work out better in some cases.

Amanda

"For instance, if you are both say early 40s, offsetting at around 25% is probably close to right,"

Can you explain why someone should accept only 25% of the pension CETV?
For a wife with no pension at say age 45 - how would you argue for a pound for pound deal and what would you say to an opponent who said the Maskell judgement was the precedent for 25% only for offsetting?