Definition of when a pension ceases to be 'deferred'

Antfan

I applied for a CETV (Cash Equivalent Transfer Value) for my Civil Service pension on 8th December 2025. This was for the purposes of obtaining a Financial Order as part of divorce proceedings. I had previously advised Civil Service Pensions, on 12th November 2025, that I wished to start claiming my pension when I reached 60 years of age on 17th January 2026.

Civil Service Pensions make no charge for a CETV if your pension is 'deferred', but charge a whopping £1,200 for the equivalent PETV (Pension Equivalent Transfer Value) once you are a 'Pensioner member'. They state that in the case of divorce proceedings they send the transfer value 'within six weeks of your request'.

I have today, almost 6 months after my initial request, received a letter advising me that before producing my quote they require me to agree to pay, upon delivery of the quote, a fee of £1,200.

Their logic for the fee appears to be that because I had advised on 12th November 2025 that I wished to commence my payment, at its due date of 17th January 2026, that from 12th November I was no longer classed as 'deferred' - hence having to pay for the calculation of the value that I requested on 8th December 2025.

What I am seeking to clarify is whether there is a legal definition to when a 'deferred pension' ceases to be classed as such, i.e. is it at the point that you advise the pension supplier that you wish to commence taking your pension when it subsequently becomes due, or does it only no longer be legally classed as 'deferred' at the point that it becomes due (17th January 2026), or perhaps even at the date at which the first payment becomes due (17th February 2026 - as it is paid a month in arrears).

I'm hoping that someone can give me the legal definition of 'deferred', and the relevant legislation which defines this. At least then I will know whether I have to 'suck it up' and pay the fee, or whether I would be within my rights to demand the provision of a figure with no charge to me.

Many thanks to anyone who can provide a legal basis for this decision.

QrizB

I suspect your CETV was delayed by all the Capita failures.

Is your pension now in payment? Or is it still deferred?

Here's the Capita thread, if you're unaware:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6644363/new-capita-run-civil-service-pension-scheme-problems-what-a-surprise

Antfan

Yes, the pension is now in payment - after being delayed by Capita's takeover issues. However, my view would be that the state of my pension, i.e. deferred vs in payment, should be defined by the date of my request rather than as a result of their inability to process it for what is now almost 6 months. Fingers crossed they'll see sense.

Marcon

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82024490#Comment_82024490

Date of request isn't the key date, because schemes have 3 months (occasionally longer) to provide a CETV. They may target 6 weeks, but that's not the statutory requirement.

I applied for a CETV (Cash Equivalent Transfer Value) for my Civil Service pension on 8th December 2025. This was for the purposes of obtaining a Financial Order as part of divorce proceedings. I had previously advised Civil Service Pensions, on 12th November 2025, that I wished to start claiming my pension when I reached 60 years of age on 17th January 2026.

…and your pension came into payment well before the expiry of that timeframe, so I don't think you can successfully argue that it was calculated at the time it was still in deferment.

retroman62

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82024513#Comment_82024513

No doubt, you are right, and from my own experience, pension providers and the Pension Ombudsman, funded by the pension providers, will prevail within the favourable regulatory environment within which they operate. But the OP asked a specific question around the legal definition of "deferred", which I would also like to know the answer to. Why shouldn't it be at the point of request - the OP/consumer has no control over the length of time it might take to produce the quote, nor would they be aware, as consumer rather than a pension specialist, of any statutory requirement - and at the point of request, it was still deferred.

The OP has my sympathies here. In the government website on deferring (delaying) state pension, the context is getting an increase in payments if you delay state pension beyond state pension age. I used the same the same term -defer - when I put in my request to my pension providers. When it eventually transpired, after deferring my pension, that there was no late retirement factor applied, I complained and got nowhere including the Ombudsman -apparently because I hadn't used the term "late retirement factors" -it's selective jargon to suit the pension industry rather than the consumer.

Marcon

But the OP asked a specific question around the legal definition of "deferred", which I would also like to know the answer to.

dunstonh

No doubt, you are right, and from my own experience, pension providers and the Pension Ombudsman, funded by the pension providers, will prevail within the favourable regulatory environment within which they operate.

A levy does not indicate any favouritism or bias. A single outcome in your case that may have gone against you does not also indicate any favouritism or bias. It is more likely to indicate that you were wrong in your understanding.

But the OP asked a specific question around the legal definition of "deferred", which I would also like to know the answer to.

Already answered in the thread and repeated again by Marcon above