The evidence
Home › Resources › Questions to ask a pension expert
General information, not advice on your own case.
Two well qualified pension experts can look at the same two pensions and produce different numbers, and both can be entirely correct. That is because the recognised guidance leaves room for professional judgement on several important points: how a defined benefit pension is valued, what retirement age two pensions are compared at, and how offsetting is calculated. Those choices are rarely visible in the finished report unless somebody asks about them in advance. This page gives you a list of questions to put to an expert before you instruct them, explains why each one matters, and describes what a useful answer sounds like. A good expert will be pleased you asked.
A Pension on Divorce Expert (a PODE) is instructed to answer a question, not to produce a single objectively correct number. There is more than one professionally acceptable way to approach most of the steps involved, and different firms have settled on different approaches for good reasons.
None of that is a criticism of anyone. The variation sits within recognised professional guidance, not outside it. The problem is not that experts disagree. The problem is that if nobody asks which approach will be used, you can end up with a report that answers a slightly different question from the one you needed answered, and you only discover that when you read it.
Asking these questions at the outset costs nothing. It also tends to produce a better report, because the expert then knows precisely what you want.
You do not have to ask all of them. Pick the ones that fit your case, and give the list to your solicitor if you have one.
Why it matters. A defined benefit pension (final salary or career average, the type used by the NHS, teachers, the armed forces, local government, the police and the civil service) is a promise of an income for life. To compare it with anything else, somebody has to turn that promise into a capital sum. There is more than one legitimate way to do that.
Across the market, two broad approaches are in use:
Both approaches are used by well regarded firms and both are consistent with recognised guidance. The difference between the two figures can be material, and it moves over time with market conditions and with the scheme’s own factors. It can run in either direction. Nobody can tell you in advance which way it will go for your scheme on your valuation date, which is precisely why the basis used should be stated rather than assumed.
A good answer explains which approach the expert uses, says whether both figures will be shown, and explains what each one is for. Be wary of an answer that treats the question as unimportant.
Why it matters. The pension sharing order will be expressed as a percentage of the cash equivalent, because that is the currency the scheme works in. So even where an independent value is used to decide what is fair, the cash equivalent still has to appear somewhere for the order to be drafted. Seeing both figures, and an explanation of why they differ, is what allows you, your solicitor and (if it comes to it) the court to understand the report.
Why it matters. Every valuation and every comparison rests on assumptions: about investment returns, inflation, life expectancy, and how benefits are drawn. Reasonable experts choose differently. What matters far more than the individual choices is whether they are disclosed, so that another expert can follow the working and so that the assumptions can be tested if the case is contested.
A good answer is a straightforward yes, with the assumptions listed in an appendix.
Why it matters. This is one of the biggest sources of difference between reports, and one of the least visible. Where two schemes have different normal retirement ages (the age at which the scheme pays benefits without reduction), the expert has to decide how to compare them. Approaches in use across the market include:
All three are defensible. They can produce noticeably different answers, particularly where there is an age gap between you or where the schemes’ early retirement factors are generous or harsh.
A good answer tells you which approach will be used and why it suits your case, and offers a range or a sensitivity if the choice is finely balanced.
Why it matters. “Equalising pensions” can mean equalising the income each of you receives in retirement, or equalising the capital value of what each of you holds. These are different calculations and they usually give different percentages. The gap between them widens where there is an age gap, because a given capital sum buys a different amount of income at different ages.
If the report only gives one, and it is not the one your case needs, you may have to go back and pay for more work.
A good answer confirms that both can be produced, and asks you which is the primary question so the report leads with it.
Why it matters. Where the argument is about pension built up during the marriage rather than the whole pension, somebody has to decide how much of the pension relates to that period. There is more than one recognised method, and they can produce different results, particularly for a long career with a short marriage, or where most of the growth happened at one end of the working life.
A good answer explains the method proposed, explains why it fits the facts, and flags that apportionment is a legal question as well as a technical one, so the instruction should state whether apportionment is wanted at all.
Why it matters. Offsetting means one of you keeps the pension and the other receives more of something else, usually the house or cash. The recognised framework has three stages:
Firms differ at stage 2, and they differ considerably at stage 3. Some apply a utility adjustment and explain their reasoning. Others take the view that utility is a matter for the parties and ultimately for the court rather than an actuarial question, and so present the figures without one. Both positions are held by respected practitioners.
A good answer states plainly which stages the expert will carry out, and, where a stage is left out, explains why and who they consider should decide it. What you want to avoid is an offsetting figure whose basis is not stated, because you cannot sensibly negotiate against a number you cannot take apart.
Why it matters. The tax adjustment depends on assumptions about the rate at which pension income will eventually be taxed, and about tax free cash. Different but reasonable assumptions produce different answers.
A good answer sets out the assumed position and its sensitivity, rather than presenting a single net figure with no explanation.
Why it matters. Turnaround times across the market range from around ten working days to several months. That range is not a comment on quality. It reflects capacity, complexity and how quickly schemes respond. But it can matter a great deal if you have a court timetable or a hearing date.
A good answer gives a realistic estimate from receipt of complete information, and says what would delay it. Scheme responses are the usual cause of slippage, and that is outside the expert’s control.
Why it matters. Fees vary widely across the market. They do not reliably track whether the expert is an actuary or a financial planner, or how long the report takes. So a quote is only meaningful once you know what is inside it: how many pensions, how many scenarios, whether both income and capital equalisation are included, whether an offsetting calculation is included, and whether obtaining information from schemes is part of the job.
A good answer is a written scope alongside the fee.
Why it matters. It is very common for questions to arise after a report lands, either from you, from the other side or from the court. Some firms include a round of questions in the fee. Others charge for it. Neither is wrong, but the difference can be significant in a case that runs on.
A good answer tells you before you instruct, in writing.
Why it matters. Most cases settle and most reports are never tested in a courtroom. But if your case may be contested, it is relevant that relatively few experts across the market have actually given evidence in court. Experience of being cross examined is a distinct skill from producing the calculations.
A good answer is a straight factual one. If the answer is little or none, that is not a reason to rule the expert out for a case that is likely to settle. It is a reason to think carefully if yours is not.
Why it matters. Practice varies. Some experts accept instructions direct from an individual who is acting without a solicitor (a litigant in person). Others will only accept instructions through a solicitor or through a mediator. If you are representing yourself, this is the question that determines whether you can instruct that firm at all, so ask it early.
A good answer is clear about who can instruct, and, where direct instruction is not accepted, explains the route that is available.
Why it matters. In many cases one expert is instructed jointly by both parties, which means the expert owes their duty to the court and not to whoever pays. Both of you then work from the same report, which usually saves money and narrows the argument. In other cases a party instructs their own expert. The expert’s duties and the way the report is written differ between the two, so establish which is intended before work starts.
Almost everything above comes back to the letter of instruction. An expert answers the question they are asked. A vague instruction produces a report that is technically sound and practically unhelpful, and the cost of fixing that falls on you.
A clear instruction says:
If you are not sure what to specify, say so. Experts are used to being asked what the instruction should contain, and a short conversation before instruction is generally free.
Asking these questions is not a sign of distrust. It is how you get a report that does its job. A good expert will welcome them, because a well framed instruction makes their work more useful too.
The observations in this page about the range of approaches, turnaround times and fees are drawn from a review of publicly available material published by expert firms working in this field. They are presented as general features of the market. No individual firm is described or identified, and the variation described sits within recognised professional guidance.
This page is general information about the law of England and Wales. It is not legal or financial advice about your own circumstances.
October 2026
The free check takes about two minutes and tells you where you stand.