Pension sharing incorrect

Richardbirdsall

The way I under stood it was that she would get 50000 of the pension and that would be us split 50/50.. she is 67k better off

atush

in my experience men (usually as they tend to earn/own more but not always) Think they have paid too much and women (who usually earn less) and their children think they dont get enough (esp when child maintenance is quite often ignored/not paid.

A whole lot of whining going on.

crv1963

Richardbirdsall wrote: »

The way I under stood it was that she would get 50000 of the pension and that would be us split 50/50.. she is 67k better off

There may be more to this than you think. You say you thought she'd get 50k from one of your pensions, were you expecting her to get monies from your other pensions and this has not happened? As in all the monies awarded to her in the Pension Sharing Order are taken from a single pension rather than a part of each pension? If so she may have not ended up with more than she was awarded from the total pension provision. It also makes economic sense for the court to award from a single pension pot as she then only has one fee to pay.

Equity from the marital home, although part of the overall package considered by the court and there is always a trade between the different assets in the whole pot is awarded by a different court order.

If the assets have grown you too will have benefited from the growth in the remaining assets you own too, so although it may seem she has gained by increase in value, you have too.

As I suggested earlier, accept the price and put it behind you, don't look back as you are moving onward, not backwards. Otherwise you risk being a sad bloke crying into his beer- a thing that will hold you back and eat you up eventually.

AnotherJoe

Richardbirdsall wrote: »

The way I under stood it was that she would get 50000 of the pension and that would be us split 50/50.. she is 67k better off

Which is a direct contradiction to what you initially posted

and £50000 from one of my pensions this equated to 66%.

Prism

Richardbirdsall wrote: »

The way I under stood it was that she would get 50000 of the pension and that would be us split 50/50.. she is 67k better off

Ok so one question is how much of that pension do you have left?

Thrugelmir

The bottom line is that you haven't lost out. Your pension is still the same as it was. Time to move on. Little point in fretting about what was an equitable settlement at the time. If the CETV had been higher. Then your ex could have received a greater share of other assets, such as the equity in any property you owned.

BoGoF

It doesn't matter what you thought you agreed to, what does the Pensiom sharing order actually say?

Marcon

crv1963 wrote: »

One of the reasons for allowing up to 5 years to implement is because providers including Public Sector Pensions can charge a fee to split or share a pension- so other scheme members are not bearing the cost of the process. I

Sounds a complete non-sequitur. Charging a fee doesn't mean something takes 5 years to do!

crv1963

Marcon wrote: »

Sounds a complete non-sequitur. Charging a fee doesn't mean something takes 5 years to do!

My apologies if my comment appears off track, I mentioned the 5 year limit as the OP states his case was 2 years after the order. My understanding is that the 5 year time frame gives the recipient the chance to get the money together to pay the fees involved.

Woby_Tide

Richardbirdsall wrote: »

The way I under stood it was that she would get 50000 of the pension and that would be us split 50/50.. she is 67k better off

So if the split was 50/50 this suggests you had:

a pension of £75k at the time to be split 66/34%
equity at the time of £75k to be split 34/66%

Since that time the pension has grown to £175k? Hence the worth is now £117k/£58k?

So your pension has increased by £33k so she is only better off by £34k, not £67k?