A pension calculation done pre-Form-E sits in a different methodological position from one done post-Form-E. The pre-Form-E calculation establishes the substantive valuation position the parties will negotiate against; the post-Form-E version validates a position that has already taken shape around the scheme’s issued figures. The timing of the calculation is, in cases with substantial private-sector defined-benefit entitlements, a methodological decision rather than a procedural one.
Why timing affects methodology
The Cash Equivalent Transfer Value the scheme issues anchors most matrimonial pension matters. It is the figure on the Form E; it is the figure most settlements are negotiated against; in many cases — DC schemes, modest DB entitlements, public-sector schemes with well-established CETV bases — it is the right figure for the matter. The reflex to negotiate from the CETV is, for the median case, correct.
Where the reflex breaks down is in private-sector DB schemes with funding-position deviation, in mixed DB/DC arrangements where the valuation of the DB asset materially affects the DC offset, and in any scheme with specific features (transferred-in service, GMP, contracted-out service, AVCs) where the CETV doesn’t represent the asset the parties think they are sharing. In those cases, settling on the CETV implements an outcome the parties wouldn’t have agreed to had they known what the entitlement was actually worth. The methodological work that surfaces the gap between CETV and substantive value has to be done at some point. Doing it post-Form-E means it operates as a challenge to figures already in evidence; doing it pre-Form-E means it operates as the input the figures are built against.
The methodological position of the pre-Form-E calculation
A Pension Sharing Order calculation commissioned during settlement, rather than in response to a court direction, does three things the Form E disclosure can’t. It produces a fair-value benchmark against which the scheme’s CETV figures can be assessed — so the parties know whether the CETV is the right number for their settlement or whether it materially understates or overstates the entitlement. It surfaces the implementation question explicitly — the structural difference between the basis on which the order is valued and the basis on which cash leaves the scheme — before that difference becomes a dispute. And it gives both parties a defensible negotiating position grounded in methodology, rather than a position taken on trust from the scheme’s issued figures.
The substantive output is the same Pension Sharing Order calculation the firm produces in court-appointed contexts, with the same Pension Sharing Order CMC™ artefact attached. What changes is the procedural context — instruction direct from the parties, via a mediator, or through the solicitor leading negotiations, rather than appointment under FPR Part 25. The technical apparatus is identical; whether the matter ultimately goes to court is a separate question from whether the methodological work has been done properly.
What this looks like in practice
A pre-court Pension Sharing Order calculation runs through the firm’s My Congruent portal — a structured instruction-writing tool that walks instructing parties through the substantive questions, accepts uploaded supporting documents (Form Es, scheme correspondence, statements, CETV quotations), and applies version control across edits. With the relevant permissions, both parties, the mediator, and each party’s solicitor can be granted access to the same portal instance. They contribute jointly, see the entries the others have made, and agree the final instruction before it goes to the firm’s Expert.
There is no fee for the instruction-writing process through the portal. The fee is for the calculation work itself, scoped from the completed instruction. The structured intake is the firm’s mechanism for arriving at unambiguous instructions; the portal’s edit-history and version-control are part of the calculation’s audit trail when the report is produced.
Three situations where the pre-Form-E methodological position matters
The first is where the parties hold private-sector defined-benefit entitlements of any meaningful size. The structural difference between the scheme’s CETV and the substantive value of the same entitlement can be material in well-funded private DB schemes; settling on the CETV alone leaves money on the table or distributes value the parties don’t intend. The pre-Form-E calculation makes the gap visible at the point where it can still inform settlement, rather than at the point where it has to be litigated to be corrected.
The second is where the parties hold mixed DB/DC assets and the practical question is offsetting — assigning DB entitlement to one party and DC pots to the other. The pension-to-cash conversion asymmetry between DB and DC arrangements is a methodology question, not an arithmetic one; an independent calculation that values both on a consistent basis lets the parties see what they are actually exchanging.
The third is where the matter is contentious enough that the methodology is likely to be tested at court if it goes that far. Commissioning the work pre-court means the parties enter any subsequent court process with a calculation already produced to standards (CPR Part 35, FPR Part 25, IFoA APS X3) that the court would expect. If the matter settles, the methodological work supports the settlement. If the matter goes to court, the work is already in evidence-grade form.
Last updated May 2026.