Final Pension Sharing Six Years After PSO was made

The basis of a 50/50 split on my pensions was carried out as as 58/42 split on my main pension, a final salary scheme on the basis that 58% of it as a share of the CETV was equal to 50% across all the CETVs.

The scheme itself had been closed five years prior to the PSO, with no further contributions made. The PSO itself was made six years ago

For whatever reason, the PSO was never sent by the court to the Pension Scheme. I only found this out when I got a statement through with an offer of a bonus to move the pension out of the scheme, and realised the amounts did not reflect the PSO.

So my question is this. The pension is a very good one and has excellent guarantees. The CETV has grown 250% in the six years. So both her share and mine will have gone up. But my share would have gone up anyway. So the benefit of the PSO not being enacted is effectively the increase her original share has attracted.

That being the case, what will happen if the PSO is now submitted?

1) She retains all the benefit of the delay?

2) The benefit of the delay is split 50/50 or in the same proportion as the original PSO split?

3) The pension scheme adjudges that the provision of CETV is overcooked as it applies benefits to her share from after the date the PSO was supposed to be enacted and so reduces it accordingly...ie the pension scheme retains the benefit for its other members?

Did you get a pension actuary report when you were sharing the pensions? They should have helped to equalise the pensions.

I simply had the CETVs for all the pensions. In hindsight it wasn't financially astute of me to put the final pension one on an even par with the others, but not much I can do about that now. It all boils down to how the final salary administrators deal with a six year old pension sharing order. I certainly don't think I should lose out in relation to what my share is now as a percentage of the whole thing. It's just a question if they consider the amount of pension put aside as a CETV on the basis of what the whole pension is now, is grossly exaggerated considering they do not, and have not, needed to provide the pension growth guarantees to what was decided to be her share of the pension back then.