Police Pension
Offsetting vs Sharing
Whether to share a police pension or offset it against the house is often the biggest money decision in a police divorce. This guide sets out the three routes, why a police CETV makes pound-for-pound offsetting lopsided, how experts adjust for tax and timing, and what to ask before you agree anything. Written for officers and their partners.
Independent information, not advice · Sources checked 19 October 2026 · England and Wales unless stated
There is no default. A pension sharing order gives the former partner their own police pension (paid at 60, 65 or State Pension age) and a clean break. Offsetting keeps the pension whole and gives them more of the house or savings instead, but the police CETV is not a cash value, so trading it pound for pound is usually unfair to one of you. Many cases end in a mix. Get CETVs dated after 19 May 2026, ask for the McCloud split and, for most police pensions, a pension on divorce expert's report.
Put in your own figures: the police CETV from the scheme's letter, the home equity and any savings. The calculator shows the sharing percentage that equalises your pensions and how much capital an offset would need, with and without an adjustment you choose. It is an estimate, not what a court would order.
Your figures
The cash equivalent on the scheme's letter. No letter yet? Our pension divorce calculator gives a rough figure.
Value less the mortgage and selling costs.
Equal capital is a starting point, not a rule. Courts also look at needs and at equal income in retirement.
A pound of pension is not a pound of cash: it is taxed, paid later and cannot be spent now. The Pension Advisory Group's guide discusses about 15% to 30% for tax. Any discount is negotiated, not set by law.
Option 1: pension sharing order
Share of the police pension to transfer
44%
Moves £110,000 of CETV to your former partner as their own police pension.
- Officer keeps pension (CETV)
- £140,000
- Former partner's pensions (CETV)
- £140,000
- Home and other assets each
- £95,000
A clean break on the pension. The officer's own pension and lump sum are reduced for life by the pension debit. The former partner gets a police pension credit, paid at their own pension age.
Option 2: offsetting with the home
Extra the former partner takes instead
£110,000
Pound for pound on the CETV.
- Former partner takes in home and assets
- £190,000
- Officer keeps in home and assets
- £0
- Officer keeps the whole pension (CETV)
- £250,000
There is not enough: offsetting fully would need £15,000 more than the home and other assets are worth. A partial pension share, or a mix, is the usual answer.
A third option, an attachment order, tells the scheme to pay part of the officer's pension or lump sum to the former partner when it is paid. The former partner gets nothing until the officer draws the pension, the pension stays the officer's, and there is no clean break, so most solicitors prefer a sharing order or offsetting. You cannot have a sharing order and an attachment order on the same pension for the same marriage.
Go further with your own figures
Turn these estimates into a plan you can take to a solicitor
Police Divorce Pension Report · £49.99
Your pension at every share, the lump sum before and after, the part built up during the marriage, when each part is paid, what your former partner gets, offsetting figures and the questions for your solicitor. With a PDF.
See the reportPolice Separation Money Plan · £19.99
Both households side by side, child maintenance both ways, whether you can buy out the house, and what happens if overtime drops. With a PDF.
See the planPolice Divorce Pack: both, plus the Pension Command Centre, £59.99 (worth £116.98 separately)
The Command Centre models your whole police pension to retirement, so you can see life after the settlement. One payment, no subscription. 12 months on the report and plan; the Command Centre is yours to keep.
Estimates and general information, not legal, financial or mortgage advice.
Free enquiry
Get the share or offset decision checked
Agreeing an offset on CETVs alone is one of the most common ways a police pension settlement goes wrong. Tell us where you are and we will reply, and if you want, introduce you to a family-law firm with police pension experience.
The three ways to deal with a police pension, and their legal basis
In England and Wales there are three ways to deal with a pension on divorce or dissolution: a pension sharing order, offsetting, and a pension attachment order. PAG2, the Pension Advisory Group's guide used by family lawyers and judges, lists the same three (para 3.4) and says attachment orders "are now rarely made" (para 3.6). You can also combine them: PAG2 calls a mix of sharing and offsetting "partial offsetting" and says it "should not be ignored" (para 7.8).
| Pension sharing order | Offsetting | Attachment order | |
|---|---|---|---|
| What it does | Moves a percentage of the officer's police pension to the former partner on the day the order takes effect. The officer gets a pension debit, the former partner a pension credit of the same cash equivalent | Leaves the police pension whole with the officer. The former partner takes more of the house, savings or other capital instead | Leaves the pension with the officer, but tells the scheme to pay a percentage of the pension (or of a lump sum) to the former partner when it becomes payable |
| Legal basis (England and Wales) | Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 s.21A (definition) and s.24B (power); Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 ss.29 and 31 (debit, credit, reduction) | No statute. It is done through ordinary lump sum and property orders, or by agreement, with the pension's value taken into account | Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 ss.25B and 25C |
| Clean break on the pension | Yes: each of you owns your own pension from then on | Yes, if the rest of the order is a clean break | No: the former partner depends on when and whether the officer draws the pension |
| When the former partner gets money | Their own pension from 60 (1987 scheme), 65 (2006) or State Pension age (2015 scheme). It cannot be transferred out | Straight away, as capital or a bigger share of the home | Only when the officer's pension or lump sum is paid |
| Scheme fees | Implementation fees in the thousands (Met schedule £4,070, 2023 version; SPPA £4,320 standard from April 2026) | No scheme implementation fee, but usually needs expert valuation | Lower at some administrators (Met £36 to £132, 2023 version); SPPA charges £2,052.60 standard |
| Main risk | A 50% split of the cash equivalent rarely gives equal incomes for police pensions | Using the CETV as if it were cash; a common source of negligence claims (PAG2 para 7.4) | Payments depend on the officer's choices and life; PAG2 says these orders are now rarely made |
In Scotland the same choices exist in substance, but only the pension built up between the marriage and the relevant date counts, the order states a cash amount rather than a percentage, and there is a strict two-month deadline for the scheme to receive the papers. See police divorce in Scotland.
If you are the officer, the question is usually how much of your pension or your share of the home you give up. If you are the partner, the question is whether capital now is a fair swap for an inflation-linked pension you would otherwise get for life. Both of you need the same numbers, so this page explains them once. How the CETV itself is worked out is covered in the police pension divorce settlement guide; here we only summarise it.
The legal basis for each route
Pension sharing. A pension sharing order is defined in section 21A of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 as an order that the pension rights of one party under a specified arrangement are shared, stating the percentage to be transferred. Section 24B gives the court the power to make one on or after the divorce, but the order cannot take effect until the divorce order is made final, and it cannot be made against an arrangement already shared or already subject to an attachment order for the same marriage. The mechanics are in the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999: on the day the order takes effect, the officer's benefits become subject to a debit and the former partner gets a credit of the same amount (s.29), and the officer's benefits are reduced (s.31).
Offsetting. There is no statutory basis for offsetting. PAG2 describes it as "legally defined nowhere and referred to in no statute" (para 7.1), yet "by far the most frequently used" approach. It works through ordinary orders for a lump sum or the transfer of property, or simply through what you agree, with the pension's value taken into account. The court's duty to have regard to pension benefits, even ones not payable for years, comes from section 25B(1).
Attachment. Sections 25B and 25C let the court order the scheme to pay part of the officer's pension, part of a commuted lump sum, or part of a death lump sum, to the former partner when it becomes payable. The order states the payment as a percentage of each payment due to the officer (s.25B(5)), and where the officer can commute, the court can require them to (s.25B(7)).
Civil partners have the same three options under Schedule 5 to the Civil Partnership Act 2004. The court forms are the same: Form P1 is the pension sharing annex and Form P2 the attachment annex.
What sharing actually does in each police scheme
You cannot judge an offset without knowing what the sharing order it replaces would have produced. PAG2 makes this point directly: it is "essential to understand the pension benefits (income and lump sum)" a sharing order would give, because the offset is meant to replace them (Part 7 key points). For police pensions those benefits depend on the scheme the pension was built up in, and most officers have more than one.
| 1987 scheme | 2006 scheme | 2015 scheme | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Former partner's credit paid from | 60, or when the order takes effect if later (reg M1) | 65, or when the order takes effect if later (reg 61) | State Pension age; a reduced pension can be claimed from 55 (regs 126 and 50) |
| Former partner's lump sum | Optional: up to a quarter commuted, capped at 2.25 times the pension (reg M2) | Automatic: 4 times the pension, unless the credit came from a pension already in payment (reg 61) | Optional: £12 for each £1 of pension given up (reg 131) |
| How the debit hits the officer's lump sum | Indirectly: commutation is worked out on the pension after the debit | Directly: a separate lump sum debit | Indirectly: commutation is on the pension after the debit |
| Debit valued as starting at | Deferred pension age (60, or 50 with 25 years), or now if the officer could retire now | 65, or now if the officer could retire now | State Pension age, or now if the officer could retire now |
| If the officer retires at a different time | If the officer could retire at the transfer day but serves on, the debit is increased by a retirement timing factor | Debit reduced by an early retirement factor if the pension is taken before 65 | Debit reduced by an early retirement factor if the pension is taken before State Pension age |
| What is never debited | Death-in-service grant and children's pensions | Death-in-service grant and children's pensions | Death-in-service grant and children's pensions |
Sources: Police Pensions Regulations 1987 Part M (inserted by SI 2002/3202), Police Pensions Regulations 2006 regs 61 to 64 and Police Pensions Regulations 2015 Part 8, with the GAD pension sharing guidance notes for each scheme (10 December 2020). Because the debit is worked out on benefits built up to the day the order takes effect and then rises with CPI, the officer's later service is not shared, but the debit is adjusted for when they actually retire. The settlement guide explains how the debit works in more detail.
Two consequences matter for share or offset. First, a credit from the 1987 or 2006 scheme is paid years after the officer's own pension could start, so an equal capital split will not give equal incomes in the years in between. Second, the death-in-service grant and children's pensions are never reduced by a debit, so they are outside the share or offset question altogether (see death in service and divorce).
Why the police CETV makes pound-for-pound offsetting lopsided
Offsetting needs a single capital figure for the pension. The obvious one is the cash equivalent (CETV) on the scheme's letter. For a police pension that is usually the wrong figure to trade against cash, for reasons that PAG2 sets out in general terms (Part 7) and for police schemes specifically (Appendix I).
First, the CETV is a valuation, not money. Police pension schemes are unfunded: there is no pot. The CETV is calculated from tables issued by the Government Actuary's Department using a discount rate set by HM Treasury (the SCAPE rate, CPI plus 2% from 19 May 2026). PAG2 says the CE "is often not a reliable comparator" for defined benefit schemes and "may not even be comparable" between two such schemes (Part 7 key points), and that for public sector schemes, benefits "are likely to be higher for a given CE" than in a private scheme with the same CE (para I.33).
Second, PAG2 picks out uniformed services by name: where one party has a pension with "the Armed Forces or the Police", an equal division of CE "can lead to very unexpected outcomes" and such cases "will require PODE input" (Case 2).
| Police feature | What it does to the CETV | Source |
|---|---|---|
| CE assumes the officer left service the day before | Benefits are valued as deferred pensions payable at deferred pension age (or now, if the officer could retire now). GAD's assumptions use nil commutation | GAD consolidated factor workbook 2026-03, Assumptions sheet |
| 24 years against 25 years (1987 scheme) | PAG2 calls a CE taken just before 25 years' service "an undervalue": at 24 years the deferred pension is payable at 60, at 25 years from 50 | PAG2 Appendix I para I.9 |
| Serving on past the point you could retire | The CE assumes immediate payment, so the debit is repaid over a shorter period if the officer keeps serving and can grow well beyond simple inflation | PAG2 paras I.15 to I.18 (a feature of the Police Pension Scheme); GAD 1987 note paras 3.78 to 3.93 |
| 1987 and 2015 benefits together | PAG2 says the value of 1987 benefits can "actually reduce" as the officer works past 30 years, because of how debits are adjusted | PAG2 paras I.11 to I.12 |
| Treasury discount rate | Public sector CEs use a rate set by HM Treasury (SCAPE), so a police CE is not comparable with a private pension's CE of the same size | PAG2 paras I.32 to I.33 |
| Different payment ages | The officer's own pension may start at 50 or 55; the former partner's credit is paid at 60, 65 or State Pension age | Police Pensions Regulations 1987 Part M; 2006 reg 61; 2015 regs 126 and 50 |
| No survivor pension on a credit | A credit pays the former partner for life but nothing to their own partner after their death, while the officer's pension may carry survivor benefits for a later spouse | SPPA leaflet s.8; 2006 reg 64 |
Which way the error runs depends on the case. Sometimes the CETV understates what the officer keeps (for example at 24 years' service in the 1987 scheme, or because a pound of police CE buys more pension than a pound of private CE). Sometimes a sharing order costs the officer more than it gives the partner (for example where the officer serves on after they could retire). That is why PAG2 says the CE is "a starting point" and that relying on CEs for defined benefit schemes "can be dangerous" (para 7.8).
PAG2 records that where negligence claims have been made against family lawyers over pensions, "it has overwhelmingly been in cases where offsetting has been the chosen remedy, not pension sharing" (para 7.4). That is a reason to be careful with offsetting, not a reason never to do it.
Equal capital, equal income, or needs?
Before you decide between sharing and offsetting, you need to know what you are trying to divide. PAG2 says the two most common ways of thinking about pensions are equality of capital and equality of income (para 3.7).
- Equal capital divides the cash equivalents so each of you ends up with the same CE. It is simple, but for police pensions it can give quite different incomes because the officer's pension and the former partner's credit are paid at different ages and on different terms.
- Equal income aims for the same pension income for each of you from a chosen age. PAG2 says that in needs cases with significant defined benefit pensions "the appropriate analysis will often be to divide the pensions separately from the other assets, based on an equalisation of incomes approach" (para 1.17). Working that out for a police pension needs the scheme's credit factors, which is expert work.
- Needs come first in most divorces. PAG2 notes that in many cases property is kept by one party on a needs basis and the pension is left with the other "simply because it might be the only other substantial asset", even if it is worth "palpably less" than the property (para 7.43). In other words, a needs-led outcome may not look like either equality calculation.
Whether pension built up before the marriage or after separation should count fully is a legal argument for your solicitor. In England and Wales the CETV and any sharing percentage apply to the whole pension (WRPA s.29), so any adjustment for non-marital service is made in the percentage you agree, not by the scheme. Scotland is different: only the marriage-period share is valued.
A credit is paid for life from 60 in the 1987 scheme, 65 in the 2006 scheme and State Pension age in the 2015 scheme (the 2015 regulations allow a reduced pension from 55). It rises with CPI before and after payment, cannot be transferred out, and carries no survivor's pension. The officer's own pension may start at 50 or 55. Those age gaps are the main reason a 50% split of CE does not give equal incomes. The spouse's view of all this is set out in divorcing a police officer.
Worked example: the same couple, sharing against offsetting
This is an illustration with made-up round numbers, not a real case. The figures are worked out by the same code as the calculator above. Suppose the officer's police CETV is £400,000, the partner has their own pensions with a CE of £20,000, there is £250,000 of equity in the home and £30,000 of savings, and you are aiming for equal pension cash equivalents.
- Total pension CE: £400,000 + £20,000 = £420,000.
- Half of that is £210,000. The partner already has £20,000, so they need a credit of £190,000.
- As a percentage of the police CETV: £190,000 ÷ £400,000 = 47.5%. That is the sharing order for equal capital.
- Offsetting the same £190,000 instead means the partner needs that much extra capital, on top of half the £280,000 of home and savings.
| Pension sharing order | Offset, pound for pound | Offset with a 15% adjustment | Offset with a 30% adjustment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Former partner's pension | £210,000 of CE (their own £20,000 plus a credit of £190,000) | £20,000 (their own only) | £20,000 | £20,000 |
| Officer's police pension | £210,000 of CE after a 47.5% order | £400,000 (kept whole) | £400,000 | £400,000 |
| Capital the former partner needs instead of the credit | None: the credit does the job | £190,000 | £161,500 | £133,000 |
| Home equity and savings to the former partner | £140,000 | £280,000 | £280,000 | £273,000 |
| Home equity and savings to the officer | £140,000 | £0 | £0 | £7,000 |
| Shortfall (not enough capital to offset) | None | £50,000 | £21,500 | None |
Three things stand out. Pound for pound, the partner would need £190,000 of extra capital, and there is not enough: even all £280,000 of the home and savings leaves a shortfall of £50,000. With a 30% adjustment (PAG2's top tax figure for a higher-rate taxpayer), the offset just fits, but the officer is left with £7,000 of capital and no home. And under the sharing order, each of you keeps £140,000 of capital, which may or may not be enough for either of you to rehouse.
This is why so many police cases end up with partial offsetting: a sharing order for part of the pension, and an unequal split of the home for the rest. The example also only equalises cash equivalents. An equal income calculation could point to a different percentage, which only the scheme's factors or an expert can give you.
What each of you gives up under each route
The arithmetic is only half of it. Sharing and offsetting move different risks between you, and that is often what decides the choice in practice.
| If you share | If you offset | |
|---|---|---|
| The officer gives up | A slice of the pension and, through it, part of the lump sum, for good. It cannot be bought back as such; only ordinary added pension within normal limits (SPPA leaflet s.5; 2006 reg 56(5)) | Capital now, often the home or a large part of it, at a time of life when borrowing again may be hard |
| The partner gives up | Capital now, and any hope of drawing the pension before 60, 65 or State Pension age | An inflation-linked income for life that does not depend on the officer's choices, health or death |
| Who carries the investment risk | Nobody: both pensions are paid by the scheme | The partner, on whatever they do with the capital |
| Who carries the longevity risk | The scheme, for both of you | The partner: capital can run out; a pension cannot |
| Cost | Scheme implementation fee (thousands) plus advice | No scheme fee, but an expert valuation is usually needed |
For the partner. A police pension credit is unusually secure: it is paid by the scheme for life, rises with CPI and does not depend on the officer after the order. Its limits are that it cannot be moved, has no survivor's pension, and starts at 60, 65 or State Pension age. PAG2 also notes that a credit member in poor health loses value, because there is only one set of credit factors with no allowance for shorter life expectancy (para I.35). If you are in poor health, ask your solicitor whether that changes the case for capital now.
For the officer. Keeping the pension whole protects your retirement income and any survivor's pension for a future partner, but if you have to give up the home to do it, you may be buying again on one salary. A sharing order cannot be reversed by buying the shared pension back: the 2006 regulations say a debit member may not replace debited rights with rights they could not otherwise have bought (reg 56(5)), and SPPA says shared benefits cannot be replaced, though ordinary added pension may be possible.
For both. PAG2 points out that when sharing is based on equal incomes, experts' different methods "usually do not generate significantly different outcomes", but when offsetting, one expert's value for a pension can be "significantly different" from another's (para 7.5). Offsetting puts more weight on a number you will both be tempted to argue about.
A pound of pension is not a pound of cash: tax, timing and utility
If you do offset, PAG2 sets out a three-step method (para 7.14): value the pension, adjust for tax, then decide whether to adjust for "utility" (cash now against income later). It deliberately avoids the word "discount" for the second and third steps, because actuaries use "discount rate" for something else (para 7.15).
| Step (PAG2 Part 7) | What it means | PAG2's suggested range |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Value the pension | Decide what is being offset: the value of the benefits the officer keeps, or the cost to the former partner of getting a credit. PAG2 says valuing the holder's retained benefits is likely to be the fairest of three options for complex cases | No range: a PODE's figure, not the CETV, for defined benefit schemes in most cases (paras 7.17 to 7.23) |
| 2. Adjust for tax | Pension income is taxed; offset capital is not taxed on receipt. With a quarter tax-free and the rest at 20%: 75% x 20% = 15%. At 40%: 75% x 40% = 30% | 15% to 30%, depending on the officer's likely tax rate in retirement (paras 7.30 to 7.36) |
| 3. Adjust for utility (maybe) | Whether cash now is worth more than income later. A matter for the parties or the judge, not the expert | Often none. If justified, 0% to 25% (paras 7.37 to 7.42) |
Tax. Police pension income is taxed as income when it is paid. Capital received in an offset is not taxed on receipt, though what it earns may be. PAG2 works the adjustment out as a quarter tax-free and the rest taxed at the pensioner's rate: 15% for a basic rate taxpayer, 30% for a higher rate taxpayer (paras 7.32 to 7.33). It also notes the person receiving capital can put some into their own pension and get tax relief, or hold it in an ISA (para 7.36). For a police pension, the lump sum works differently in each scheme (commutation in 1987 and 2015, an automatic lump sum in 2006), so the 25% tax-free figure is PAG2's general assumption, not a police rule.
Timing. A pension pays nothing until it starts, and the former partner's credit starts later than the officer's pension. A proper valuation deals with that by discounting future payments, which is the expert's step 1. PAG2 lists methods an expert might use, including a "Defined Contribution Fund Equivalent", an actuarial value, and the Galbraith Tables as a rough starting point that is less suitable where a defined benefit pension's CE is over £200,000 (paras 7.24 to 7.25). It says Duxbury-style tables do not give a comparable outcome for pensions (para 7.27).
Utility. PAG2 says a utility adjustment "will often not be appropriate", is a matter for the parties or the judge rather than the expert, and if justified might be 0% to 25% (key points and para 7.42). Its pointers are relevant to police couples: it is harder to justify in needs cases; a basic housing need for the person receiving capital points against it; it shrinks as you near retirement age; and in PAG2's experience pensions "appear to have been excessively adjusted" for utility (para 7.41).
You may hear that pensions are "discounted by a third" when offset. PAG2 says the Family Justice Council's 20% to 40% range "has no formal mathematical grounding" and is only where outcomes tend to fall in practice (para 7.30). It suggests 15% to 30% for tax, with nothing further for utility unless justified. One argument for utility on other pensions, that they can be cashed in under the pension freedoms, does not apply to unfunded public service schemes such as the police (para 7.41).
The house: can either of you keep it on one police salary?
Offsetting is most often about the home: PAG2 says it appeals to primary carers "who wish to retain the family home" (para 7.2). Whether that works depends less on the pension maths than on whether one person can carry the mortgage alone.
Illustration, not a lending decision. A constable at the top of the pay scale earns £52,015 a year basic pay. At 4.49 times income, the standard cap our budget calculator uses, the most a lender might offer on that alone is about £52,015 x 4.49 = £233,547. At an assumed 4.5% over 25 years (an illustrative rate, not a quote), that loan would cost about £1,298 a month. Lenders then check affordability on take-home pay after committed spending, and maintenance you pay counts, so the real figure is often lower. Overtime may count in part or not at all.
- If the officer keeps the home and the pension, they usually need to buy the partner out with new borrowing on one salary, while paying any child maintenance.
- If the partner keeps the home in place of a pension share, they need to take on the mortgage in their own name, and they give up an inflation-linked pension for life.
- If neither can, selling and splitting the equity, with a pension sharing order for the pension, may be the only workable option, however tidy offsetting looked on paper.
The police divorce budget calculator works out take-home pay after tax, pension contributions and maintenance, then a planning borrowing figure. The housing guide covers keeping, selling and buying out, and mortgage lending rules for police covers how lenders treat overtime and allowances.
Attachment orders: why they are rarely the answer
An attachment order (once called earmarking) leaves the pension with the officer and diverts part of each payment to the former partner. For police couples it can look attractive: lower set-up charges at some administrators, no debit, and the officer keeps full control. The drawbacks are significant.
| Issue | What happens | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Timing | The former partner is paid only when a payment becomes due to the officer, so the officer's retirement date decides when money starts | MCA 1973 s.25B(4) |
| Percentage of what | The order states the payment as a percentage of each payment due to the officer, not a fixed sum | MCA 1973 s.25B(5) |
| Lump sum | Where the officer can commute pension for a lump sum, the court can require them to commute to a set extent and attach part of the lump sum | MCA 1973 s.25B(7) |
| Death and remarriage | Attached pension income works through a periodical payments order. Those cannot run beyond the death of either of you and, once made on or after the divorce, end if the receiving partner remarries or forms a civil partnership. Ask your solicitor how this applies to your draft order | MCA 1973 s.28(1)(a) |
| No clean break | You stay financially tied until the pension is paid and for as long as the order runs, and either of you may apply to vary it | PAG2 paras 8.18 to 8.19 |
| Cannot sit alongside sharing | No sharing order can be made against a scheme already subject to an attachment order in the same marriage, and the reverse | MCA 1973 ss.24B and 25B(7B) |
| Death grant | A death lump sum can be attached under s.25C. In the 2015 scheme, a death grant paid under a court order to a former spouse comes out of the grant first | MCA 1973 s.25C; Police Pensions Regulations 2015 reg 163 |
PAG2 says attachment orders "are now rarely made although they can be very useful in exceptional circumstances" (para 3.6). It also warns that anyone with an existing attachment order should take legal advice about whether the order still does what was intended (para 8.19). That warning is mainly about defined contribution pensions and the 2015 freedoms; a police pension cannot be cashed in that way, but the officer still decides when to retire, and so when payment starts.
Charges vary a lot. The Met's 2023 schedule lists attachment orders at £36 to £132, while SPPA in Scotland lists earmarking orders at £2,052.60 including VAT for a standard case from April 2026. Ask your administrator for its current schedule before you assume it is cheaper.
McCloud and the 2026 SCAPE change: which value are you offsetting?
Offsetting trades a pound figure, so the date and basis of the valuation matter more than they do for a sharing order, where the scheme recalculates the CE on the day it implements the order using the factors then in force.
- McCloud remedy service. For a divorce taking effect on or after 1 October 2023 where no sharing order is made, the scheme must value remedy period service (1 April 2015 to 31 March 2022) both as legacy and as reformed scheme benefits and use "the greater of" the two (SI 2023/831 reg 26). GAD's guidance tells administrators to provide the same "remediable cash equivalent value" for these requests (prospective guidance para 1.31). The officer will later choose only one, so the offset value may be the higher option, not the one they end up with.
- CETVs before 1 October 2023 did not reflect the remedy at all.
- CETVs before 19 May 2026 used the old SCAPE rate of CPI plus 1.7%. The NPCC's FAQs said values under the new factors "may also be lower than under previous factors", and that values given while factors changed "may be provisional". An offset agreed on an old CETV may now be based on a figure the scheme would no longer give.
The full story of the remedy, old orders and the greater-of rule is in McCloud remedy and divorce, and the rate change in the SCAPE discount rate explained.
When to get a pension on divorce expert
PAG2 is direct about police pensions: equal division of CE for uniformed services "will require PODE input" (Case 2), and "a PODE report is usually needed in offsetting cases because the value of rights given up is so important" (para 7.8). In complex cases it suggests the expert sets out two or three valuation methods and their pros and cons, and stresses that "the role of the PODE is not to recommend an answer" (para 7.28).
A good joint instruction for a share-or-offset question usually asks for:
- the sharing percentage for equal income at stated ages, and for equal capital;
- the value of the benefits the officer keeps with no sharing order, for offsetting (PAG2's preferred option iii);
- the cost to the partner of the credit they would otherwise get, where it differs;
- scenarios for the officer retiring at different dates, given how the debit is adjusted;
- how McCloud remedy service has been valued, and whether CETVs predate 19 May 2026;
- the effect of a partial offset (some sharing, some capital).
PODEs are not a regulated profession: PAG2 notes there is "currently no professional qualification or regulatory system" for them (Appendix C). Our guide to pension on divorce experts covers when you need one, what they cost and how to instruct one. If you want a first look before paying for an expert, the Police Divorce Pension Report (£49.99) models the police pension by scheme on your figures. It is a negotiation aid, not a court expert report.
Step by step: how to compare and negotiate share or offset
- Get current valuations. Ask each scheme for a divorce CETV and say it is for divorce proceedings, which shortens the deadline from 3 months to 6 weeks. Active and deferred members get one free in any 12 months. Make sure the police CETV is dated after 19 May 2026.
- Get the breakdown. Ask for the value split by scheme and for remedy period service, and the officer's service history and earliest retirement dates. The Form E guide covers the pension pages and Form P.
- Work out needs first. Housing for each of you, children, and income on one salary. Use the budget calculator and, if there are children, the child maintenance calculator.
- Run both routes on your figures. Use the calculator at the top of this page to see the sharing percentage and how much capital an offset would need.
- Instruct an expert jointly where the police pension is a large part of the money, with the questions listed above.
- Agree the method, then the number. Agree which value is being offset and what, if any, tax and utility adjustments apply, before arguing about the final figure.
- Consider partial offsetting. A smaller sharing order plus an unequal split of the home often fits police cases better than either extreme.
- Write down why. PAG2 recommends explaining the offset on Form D81 (there is a box by question 13) or in the papers with the draft consent order (paras 7.10 to 7.12).
- If sharing, plan the order. Ask the scheme to check the draft Form P1, budget for the implementation fee, and do not apply for the final order until the financial order is sealed. The divorce checklist sets out the order of steps.
- Tidy up afterwards. Update death grant nominations and wills; see death in service and divorce.
Myths and facts about offsetting police pensions
| Myth | Fact |
|---|---|
| The CETV is what the police pension is worth in cash. | It is a statutory valuation on Treasury-set assumptions, for an unfunded scheme that will never pay it out as cash. PAG2 says the CE is "often not a reliable comparator" for offsetting defined benefit pensions. |
| Offsetting against the house is simpler and cheaper. | It avoids the implementation fee, but PAG2 says ill-considered offsetting is where negligence claims overwhelmingly arise, and it usually needs an expert valuation. |
| A 50% sharing order gives you equal pensions. | It gives equal cash equivalents. Because the credit is paid at a later age and on different factors, equal incomes often need a different percentage. PAG2 Case 2 says equal division of CE for uniformed services can give "very unexpected outcomes". |
| My ex can take their share as a lump sum or move it to another pension. | No. A police pension credit stays in the police scheme (1987 reg F10A; 2006 reg 79; 2015 reg 180(3)). Only a commutation lump sum at payment age is possible, within the scheme rules. |
| There is a standard offset discount, such as a third. | There is no rule. The Family Justice Council's 20% to 40% range is described by PAG2 as having no formal mathematical grounding. PAG2 suggests 15% to 30% for tax, and a utility adjustment only if justified. |
| Offsetting means the pension is not taken into account. | The court must have regard to pension benefits (MCA s.25B(1)). Offsetting takes the pension into account by giving the other person more of something else. |
| An attachment order is a cheap halfway house. | It can be cheaper to set up, but the former partner waits for the officer's pension, payments can stop on death or remarriage, and there is no clean break. PAG2 says they are now rarely made. |
| Service after the divorce gets shared. | A sharing order is based on benefits built up to the day it takes effect (WRPA s.29). Later service is the officer's, though the debit itself is revalued and adjusted for when the officer retires. |
If you are unsure which of these applies to you, a family solicitor can tell you how they apply to your facts. The Federation family law offers page lists the arrangements branches publish, and choosing a police divorce solicitor covers what to ask.
What we could not verify
- Current (2026) implementation and attachment charges for administrators in England and Wales. The Met figures here are from its 2023 schedule, which it uprates each April.
- How administrators price a 2015 scheme credit taken early from 55. The regulations allow it with a reduction; we found no published factor table for it.
- Whether the Galbraith Tables have specific factors for police schemes.
- How often courts in police cases have used particular tax or utility adjustments. There is no official data, and PAG2's ranges are guidance, not law.
If you know of an official source that settles any of these, our corrections policy explains how to tell us.
Free: the police divorce checklist (PDF)
The documents to gather, the pension steps from CETV to pension sharing order, and the questions to ask a solicitor, written for police officers and their partners. Enter your email to download it. We will also send occasional police divorce and pension updates; unsubscribe any time.
Occasional emails, no spam, unsubscribe any time. See our privacy policy.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is pension offsetting in a police divorce?
Offsetting is when the officer keeps the police pension whole and the other person takes more of the house, savings or other capital instead. There is no statute for it: it is done by agreement or through ordinary lump sum and property orders. The hard part is deciding how much capital fairly replaces a police pension, because the CETV is not a cash value.
Is it better to share or offset a police pension?
It depends on needs, ages, the size of the pension and whether there is enough other capital. Sharing gives each of you your own pension and a clean break; offsetting gives capital now but requires a fair value for a pension that is valued on Treasury assumptions. PAG2 suggests dealing with each type of asset separately where possible. A solicitor and usually a pension on divorce expert should look at your figures.
Can I offset my police pension against the house?
Yes, by agreement or court order the other person can take more of the home in place of a pension share. Whether it is fair depends on the value given to the pension and on whether either of you can afford the home on one income. Many police cases need partial offsetting: some sharing, some extra capital.
Is a police pension CETV worth the same as cash?
No. It is the scheme's statutory valuation, using GAD factors and a discount rate set by HM Treasury. PAG2 warns that the CE of a defined benefit scheme is often unreliable for offsetting, and that for uniformed services an equal split of CE can give very unexpected outcomes. The value of the pension to the officer can be quite different.
What discount is applied when offsetting a pension?
There is no fixed discount. PAG2 describes three steps: value the pension properly, adjust for tax (often 15% to 30%), and only then consider a utility adjustment for cash now, which is often not appropriate and, if justified, 0% to 25%. Utility is for the parties or the judge to decide, not the expert.
Can my ex-partner take their share of my police pension as cash?
No. A police pension credit cannot be transferred out of the scheme. It is paid as a pension from 60 (1987 scheme), 65 (2006 scheme) or State Pension age (2015 scheme), with a lump sum option under the scheme rules. If someone needs capital now, offsetting or a mix of sharing and offsetting is the way that is usually discussed.
What is a pension attachment order and should we use one?
An attachment order (formerly earmarking) tells the scheme to pay part of the officer's pension or lump sum to the former partner when it is paid. It leaves you financially tied, depends on when the officer retires, and attached income cannot outlast the death of either of you. PAG2 says they are now rarely made. They suit a few cases only, so take advice.
How much does a pension sharing order cost to implement on a police pension?
Scheme charges are in the thousands. The Met's published schedule (2023 version, uprated each April) shows £4,070 for an active or deferred member. SPPA in Scotland charges £4,320 including VAT for a standard case from April 2026. Ask your administrator for its current schedule, since charges must be notified in advance.
Does McCloud change the value used for offsetting?
It can. For divorces taking effect on or after 1 October 2023 where no sharing order is made, the scheme values remedy period service as the greater of its legacy and reformed scheme values (SI 2023/831 reg 26). CETVs from before 1 October 2023 ignored the remedy, and CETVs from before 19 May 2026 used the old SCAPE rate.
Do we need a pension on divorce expert to offset a police pension?
Usually, yes. PAG2 says uniformed service pensions such as the police require PODE input and that a PODE report is usually needed in offsetting cases. The expert gives figures, not a decision: the split remains for you to agree or for the court.
If the officer keeps the pension, can they keep the house too?
Only if there is enough capital and income. If the other person takes extra capital to offset the pension, the officer may need to buy them out on one salary. Our budget calculator shows take-home pay after maintenance and a planning borrowing figure, and the housing guide covers keeping, selling or buying out the home.
Should the reasons for an offset be written down?
PAG2 recommends recording why the offset is fair on Form D81 or the papers supporting the draft consent order, including the pension and non-pension values and any expert advice. There is a box by question 13 of the D81 for this. It helps the judge approve the order and protects both of you later.
Sources and how we checked them
Every factual claim on this page was written from the sources below, read on 19 October 2026. Rules and figures change, so check the source for the date you are reading this. Where we could not confirm something from an official or independent source, the page says so rather than guessing. Spotted something out of date? See our corrections policy.
- Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, section 21A (pension sharing orders) : definition of a pension sharing order as a percentage to be transferred (accessed 19 October 2026)
- Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, section 24B : power to make a sharing order; takes effect only once the divorce is final; not where already shared or attached (accessed 19 October 2026)
- Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, section 25B : court must have regard to pensions; attachment as a percentage of each payment; power to require commutation; bar where shared (accessed 19 October 2026)
- Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, section 25C : attachment of death lump sums (accessed 19 October 2026)
- Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, section 28 : periodical payments end on the death of either party and on the payee's remarriage or civil partnership (accessed 19 October 2026)
- Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999, sections 29 and 31 : debit and credit fixed on benefits to the transfer day; reduction of the member's benefits (accessed 19 October 2026)
- Pension Advisory Group: A Guide to the Treatment of Pensions on Divorce, second edition (Nuffield Foundation, 2024), CC BY 4.0 : Part 7 offsetting (paras 7.1 to 7.43), para 1.17 and Case 2 (uniformed services), para 3.6 (attachment orders), Part 8, Appendix I (accessed 19 October 2026)
- Police Pensions (Remediable Service) Regulations 2023 (SI 2023/831), regulation 26 : valuation where there is no sharing order: greater of legacy and reformed values (accessed 19 October 2026)
- GAD: Pension sharing on divorce for McCloud members, prospective full guidance (21 March 2025) : para 1.31: value of benefits requests for arrangements other than sharing (accessed 19 October 2026)
- GAD Factor Guidance Hub: Police (England and Wales) consolidated factor workbooks : 2026 assumptions: retirement ages, nil commutation, CPI + 2% discount rate (accessed 19 October 2026)
- GAD: Police 1987 scheme transfer values and pension sharing guidance (10 December 2020) : debit as a negative deferred pension, retirement timing factors (paras 3.78 to 3.93) (accessed 19 October 2026)
- Government Actuary's Department: Public service pension schemes, new CETV factors (GOV.UK, 16 June 2026) : SCAPE change on 19 May 2026 and new factors (accessed 19 October 2026)
- NPCC: Police pension scheme FAQs on the SCAPE discount rate change (May 2026, hosted by Lincolnshire Police Federation) : values may be lower than under previous factors; provisional values during the change (accessed 19 October 2026)
- Pensions on Divorce etc. (Provision of Information) Regulations 2000 (SI 2000/1048), regulation 2 : 3 months, or 6 weeks if told the valuation is for divorce proceedings (accessed 19 October 2026)
- Pensions on Divorce etc. (Charging) Regulations 2000 (SI 2000/1049), regulation 3 : one free valuation in 12 months for active and deferred members (accessed 19 October 2026)
- SPPA: Pensions on Divorce, Police and Fire (1 April 2026) : credit non-transferable, no dependants' benefits on a credit, charges from April 2026 (accessed 19 October 2026)
- Metropolitan Police pensions on divorce or dissolution: schedule of charges v30 (2023) : PSO implementation £4,070 (active or deferred); attachment orders £36 to £132; uprated each April (accessed 19 October 2026)
- Police Pensions Regulations 2015 (SI 2015/445), Part 8 and regulations 163 and 180 : credit members; death grant under a court order; no transfer of credit rights (accessed 19 October 2026)
- Police Pensions Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/3415) as made : reg 61 credit at 65; reg 64 no dependants' benefits; reg 79 no transfer of credit (accessed 19 October 2026)
- GOV.UK: Form P1, pension sharing annex : annex for each pension to be shared (accessed 19 October 2026)
- GOV.UK: Form P2, pension attachment annex : annex for an attachment order (accessed 19 October 2026)
On this topic elsewhere
More in this guide series
Pension tools for after the settlement
Disclaimer
PolicePay.co.uk is an independent reference site. It is not a law firm or a financial adviser, is not regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority or authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority, and this page is general information, not legal, financial or pension advice. Every divorce settlement depends on the facts, and pension sharing is decided by agreement or by a court. Figures from our calculators are estimates on stated assumptions: the scheme administrator's cash equivalent and the court order are what count. For decisions about your settlement, speak to a family solicitor and, where the pension is a large part of the money, a pension on divorce expert. Details apply to England and Wales unless stated. Details are as checked on 19 October 2026.