Jane is 56 years old and has been a member of the NHS Pension Scheme (1995 section) for 25 years. She has a current salary of £38,000 and an accrued pension of almost £12,000 per annum. The transfer value (CETV) provided by the scheme was £200,000.
The NHS Pension Scheme has two sections, the 1995 section and the 2008 section, which have different retirement ages and benefits. Since Jane belongs to the 1995 section she will be entitled to receive her pension benefits from age 60, but the Scheme incorrectly used the CETV basis for the 2008 section which assumed that she would not be entitled to her benefits until age 65.
This meant that Jane's CETV had been incorrectly quoted as it did not reflect that she was able to receive her pension benefits from age 60. When this was identified a correct CETV was issued which increased by £55,850 to £255,850.
close boxGraham is 50 years old and he has been member of a private sector final salary scheme. His deferred pension is £25,000 per annum and the CETV provided by the scheme was £280,000.
In this case the CETV has been calculated on a weak basis which results in the CETV significantly understating the value of the accrued benefits. If allowance is made for more up to date life expectancy assumptions and lower interest rates than those used for calculating the CETV then this results in an increase of £70,000 to £350,000 – an approximate increase of 25%.
close boxJudith is 66 years old and was member of a private sector final salary scheme. She retired on a pension of £20,800 per annum. The Cash Equivalent Benefit (CEB) provided by the scheme was £340,400.
Historically the Scheme to which Judith belongs provided discretionary increases in line with price inflation. The basis on which Judith’s CEB had been calculated did not take account of these discretionary increases. Recalculating Judith’s CEB with allowance for these discretionary benefits results in a CEB of £420,000, approximately 24% higher than that originally quoted on the TV basis.
close boxIf one party has significantly more pension assets than the other party then the division of “non pension” assets can be adjusted (offset) to allow for this. In order to go down this route the first question has to be – What is the value of the pension assets?
close boxThis solution has been largely replaced by Pension Sharing but may be beneficial in some circumstances. It is much less commonly used than either sharing or offsetting.
The big drawback to this approach is that the pension assets are not transferred to the name of the spouse. The spouse must wait until the party owning the pension benefits chooses to draw those benefits and these benefits will cease on the pension scheme member’s death or on remarriage of the spouse.
close boxPension Sharing results in part of the pension assets held by one partner being transferred to their spouse. As the transferred pension assets are then held in the spouse’s own name this provides a “clean break” solution.
A pension share is normally expressed as a percentage of the CETV, the factors which should be taken into account in considering pension sharing are:
In some cases (mainly public sector schemes), benefits for the spouse are set up within the scheme and must remain there. A significant proportion of private sector schemes insist that the spouse transfers the value of the benefits from a pension share to another arrangement whilst some schemes provide the spouse with both options. The amount of benefits, how certain it is that these benefits would be provided, and the level of flexibility will depend heavily on the approach adopted by the pension scheme.
close boxWe are making donations in 2011 to two charities, Marie Curie Cancer Care who provide end of life care to terminally ill patients, and Children 1st, who are one of Scotland's leading child welfare charities.