Two questions often arrive together. What happens to a pension that is already being paid? And how is an order worked out for the married years only? One of our cases raised both, and the answers are simpler than they first look.
A pension already being paid
A pension already being paid is valued on the payments still to come. It can still be shared, and it is shared on that future value.
Lump sums and pension payments already received are not pension any more. They are cash, to be dealt with elsewhere in the settlement. We show their effect once, so the court can see it, but we do not add them back into the pension.
Where the scheme provides a survivor's pension, that is part of what the order shares, so it is part of the value.
The married period
A married-period order uses only the part of each pension built up during the marriage. The dates you give us decide that share.
It reduces the capital that passes. It does not change what the order is a percentage of. The order is still a percentage of the whole pension.
This catches people out. A smaller percentage does not mean the order applies to a smaller pension. It means a smaller share of the whole pension.
A worked example
This case is anonymised and its figures are rounded.
One person's final-salary pension had been in payment for about a year. It has a survivor's pension and a guarantee. Both people have shares in a family self-administered scheme (a SSAS). One person also has three money-purchase pots. The instruction was equal income at State Pension age, for the whole period and for the married years only.
The pension in payment
The pension in payment was valued on the payments still to come. The tax-free cash and the instalments already received were treated as cash, not pension.
A sensitivity showed the alternative. Counting that cash as pension would have moved the order to about 83%. The court can see the effect, but the cash belongs in the wider settlement, not in the pension share.
The orders
The report gave the order on each arrangement it could be made against:
| Period | Order on the SSAS share | Order on the pension in payment |
|---|---|---|
| Whole period | about 72% | about 74% |
| Married years only | about 54% | about 56% |
Each order is an alternative, not one of a pair to be made together. The married-years figures are lower because less capital has to pass. They are still a percentage of the whole SSAS share, or of the whole pension in payment.
Why the choice of arrangement matters
The scheme's cash equivalent for the pension in payment was about 9% below fair value. That matters because a defined-benefit scheme applies the order's percentage to its own cash equivalent, not to fair value. An order on that pension would leave the receiving person with less than the capital the calculation found they need.
An order on a fund, here the SSAS share, avoids that shortfall altogether, because a fund moves at its value.
Our default is a money-purchase fund first, in full, with any balance on the defined-benefit pension. Otherwise it is the largest pension that can carry the whole order. We also show the order spread pro rata, and say why we led with the one we chose. The report shows the order on each arrangement it could be made against. The court chooses.
What to do
- For a pension in payment, ask the scheme for the current pension, the survivor's pension and any guarantee, and what has already been paid, including any tax-free cash.
- Deal with lump sums and instalments already received as cash in the wider settlement, not as pension.
- If you want a married-period order, say so in the instruction and give us the dates that define the period.
- Read a married-period order as a percentage of the whole pension, not of the married part.
- Where a fund and a defined-benefit pension could each carry the order, compare the scheme's cash equivalent with fair value before choosing.
More on how we work is on our Pension Sharing Order page.
Last updated October 2026.