My ex and I each have a public sector defined benefits pension - mine has a CE value 271,000 which is just under half his, due to part time hours for 20 years since our first child was born and lack of similar opportunity for career progression due to same.
We are, ahead of FDR, permitted to jointly instruct a pensions expert to:
"..indicate what percentage share would be required to equalise pension income for both parties on retirement at 67"
I am keen to keep the
FMH and to forego some of my potential
pension share for an increase in equity share - I'm likely to need him to forego £80,000 of equity.
His solicitor is drafting the instruction and at my request is including a clause to allow a calculation to
offset pension value and house equity. Having read the PAG report, the specimen letter annexed to the report has the wording:-
"Please set out the
offsetting valuation options available and an analysis of them, including
highlighting any caveats and perceived advantages or disadvantages of a particular option, and state your preferred option on the facts of this case"
The solicitor is using the form of words:-
"...calculate what offsetting lump sum(s) might be appropriate for Mrs X to receive were she to forego any pension share that might be appropriate to achieve the % above."
Is there likely to be any difference in interpretation by the pensions expert depending on the form of words used?
I don't want to end up with the "wrong" kind of calculations but I don't want myriad calculations that will further confuse an already very confusing aspect of our settlement! How can I ensure that I will get a "conversion" figure which represents £1 equity = £x pension value or vice versa?
Thanks