General information, not advice on your own case.
- Pension attachment, once called earmarking, tells a scheme to pay part of one person's pension to their ex spouse when the member eventually takes it. The pension itself stays with the member.
- It can be made against pension income, the tax free lump sum, or a lump sum death benefit.
- It is not a clean break. You stay tied to your ex spouse's pension, sometimes for decades, and the member controls when it starts by choosing when to retire.
- There is no guarantee it will pay out. An attachment over income generally ends if the member dies, and typically ends if the person receiving it remarries.
- It can be tax inefficient, because the income is usually taxed as the member's before your share is paid across.
- It still has a place for securing a lump sum or a death benefit, or where sharing is not available, but it is rarely the whole answer.
Comparing the three routes? Start with the free “Do I need a PODE?” check.
What pension attachment is
Pension attachment is a court order that tells a pension scheme to
pay part of one person’s pension to their ex-spouse when the
pension holder eventually takes it. The pension itself stays
with the member; a slice of what it pays out is redirected. It used to
be called “earmarking”, and you will still hear that word.
It is one of the three ways to deal with a pension on divorce,
alongside pension sharing (moving a percentage across
now) and offsetting (keeping the pension and balancing
it with other assets).
What can be attached
A pension attachment order can be made against:
- the member’s pension income, so a share is paid to
the ex-spouse once the member starts drawing it;
- the member’s tax-free lump sum, paid across when
the member takes it; and
- a lump sum death benefit, paid to the ex-spouse if
the member dies.
Why it is now uncommon
Pension attachment was largely overtaken by pension sharing, which
became available for divorces from December 2000, and for good reasons.
Attachment has some real drawbacks:
- It is not a clean break. You stay financially tied
to your ex-spouse’s pension, sometimes for decades. Most people
divorcing want to separate their finances, not keep a thread running
between them into retirement.
- The member controls the timing. With an attachment
over income, nothing is paid until the member chooses to draw the
pension. They decide when to retire, so the ex-spouse waiting on that
income has little control over when it starts.
- Income usually stops when the member dies. If the
attachment is over pension income and the member dies, the payments
generally stop, and the ex-spouse can be left with nothing, unless a
separate death benefit was also attached.
- It can end if the recipient remarries. An
attachment over income typically comes to an end if the person receiving
it remarries, much like spousal maintenance.
- It can be tax-inefficient. With an attachment over
income, the pension is generally taxed as the member’s
income before the share is paid across. If the member is a higher-rate
taxpayer, the ex-spouse effectively receives their slice after tax at
the member’s rate, which can be a poor deal.
- The admin falls on the recipient. You have to keep
track of your ex-spouse for years, their whereabouts, when they retire,
whether they have died, in order to receive and check what you are
owed.
And there is no guarantee it will pay out. If you
remarry, or the pension member dies, the attachment order ceases and no
further benefits are paid. That lack of certainty is the major downside
of pension attachment.
Put together, these are why an experienced adviser will usually steer
towards pension sharing for a clean break, or offsetting where there is
other wealth to use.
When it might still make
sense
Attachment is not extinct, and there are situations where it has a
place:
- To secure a lump sum or a death benefit. Attaching
a tax-free lump sum, or a lump sum death benefit, can provide a specific
piece of security, for example protecting a spouse’s position on death,
in a way that sits alongside the rest of the settlement.
- Where pension sharing is not available or
appropriate for a particular scheme or set of
circumstances.
- As part of a wider package, occasionally, where the
parties want a specific benefit directed rather than a share of the
fund.
Even then, it is usually a considered choice for a particular reason,
not the default.
The bottom line
For most divorces, pension sharing gives the clean break and the
certainty that attachment does not, and offsetting is the alternative
where there are other assets to balance against. Attachment is worth
understanding, and occasionally worth using for a specific purpose such
as a death benefit, but it is rarely the whole answer. If it is being
considered, get the pensions valued properly and take advice on whether
it really fits, because the drawbacks above are easy to
underestimate.
Where to go next
- Comparing the routes? See the main guide on pension
sharing, and the guide on offsetting.
- Not sure if you need an expert? Try the “Do I need
a PODE?” tool.
- Ready for advice? Find a verified expert in the
directory.
July 2026