CETV offsetting

I have a teacher's pension and my husband has no pension. My husband wants half the cash value of my pension for the years of our marriage. (Married since '91.) Yesterday I learned 2 new things from a solicitor (through Wikivorce).
(1) That 'in law' our marriage ended when we started to live separately, even though we lived in the same house and our finances were not completely separate.
(2) That it is usual to deduct 10 to 20% of the value of his share of the CETV to allow for the fact that he will have the benefit of tax free cash, while I will have an income from my pension, some of which will be taxed. (For a teacher's pension, 15% would be a good guide.)
We have both agreed to negotiate a Consent Order between ourselves. Both (1) and (2) would benefit me but I think I will have a hard time convincing my husband that they are correct. I should say that we are both 58,have homes without mortgages and his savings alone almost balance my entire CETV. My savings are about half as much as his.
Has anyone had experience of either of these situations?
Or is there a section on the Wikivorce website that supports this solicitor's advice?
I would be grateful for any views on this. Thank you very much.

How long have you lived separately in the same house and how would you prove it if your ex disputed it?

Why give him cash instead of pension? If you need to balance up the pension tell him you will do that but you will also need to even up the cash savings. The thought that he will have to give up his cash savings in return for a pension may alter his thinking.

It looks as if you have been together for most of the duration that you have been in the pension scheme anyway. Did you live together beforehand? Also you can access pensions at 55.

If you post details of all assets, incomes and children someone can help.

Thanks for your reply. We lived separately in the same house for four years. Our grown up children who lived with us (and now live with me) could confirm if necessary. However, we are both determined to agree terms between us. I'm pleased that he has agreed not to claim a share of my pension for the 7 years before our marriage and the 3 years since we separated. He has no interest in having a pension - he has always preferred to have money in the bank.
We're both planning to keep working and have savings so there's no question of either of us not being able to support ourselves. However, I would be paying tax on my pension - especially when I receive my state pension at 66. So it does seem fair to me to apply a discount of some sort.
When I say 'I would have a hard time convincing him', I just mean that he would at least need to see it supported on a website.

You will pay tax on your pension when you receive it but you got tax relief when the money went in. If you diminish it's value by transferring some to your ex then you will pay less tax.

If there are enough assets then you should be able to keep all of the pension if that is what you want.

Might be difficult to evidence four years separation in the same house. Presumably you could show that you had no financial ties, shopped for food and prepared meals individually etc etc?

From the sound of it, with you each already living in a mortgage free house, there are more than enough assets to go round.

Thanks for your reply. Yes, the plan is for me to keep all my pension and give him the cash equivalent of half my pension. The four years separation is as you described above and more so - but we won't be quibbling about four years of pension anyway. As you say, more than enough assets to go round.

Have you had a legal financial consultation with a written report or just spoken to the helpline?

I would suggest that investing in this may well be worthwhile rather than just relying on the views of posters to this website.

FWIW financial settlement on divorce is based on needs and the means you have between you to meet them. Needs = housing and income, now and in the future. A 50:50 share is the start point but often isn't how things end up. In any case it doesn't mean every asset is divided in two.

The point of offsetting is usually to give one party more cash e.g to rehouse. It is true that the further away you are from being able to take the pension the greater the discount that may be applied. It is also fair that cash paid by a pension will be subject to tax and this should be considered.

Pension funds accrued outside the relationship (cohabitation is counted as well) are only likely to be excluded by a court if there are more than enough funds to meet your respective needs.

If you are agreeing between you, there is far more flexibility in the kind of agreement you can make but it must be seen to be fair.

Bear in mind that the CEV of a pension is only one measure and final salary type schemes can be more valuable than they appear because of the level of benefits they provide. What you are really looking for is equalising income in retirement. So a more accurate way to work it out would be to look at what is would cost to invest in a scheme to provide half the income you will get.

Be prepared for questions to possibly be raised if you submit a consent order for approval that has you retaining 100% of the pension.

Without knowing the precise figures involved it is hard to comment except in very general terms. It seems to me that there is no obvious reason for you to hand over any cash even if you do have 100% of the pension. If his savings pot and yours add up to 1.5x CEV and he is happy to offset on the basis of CEV, then surely if he just keeps his savings and you keep yours that achieves the desired effect?

I would strongly recommend you book a legal financial consultation if you have not already had one.

Hadenoughnow