How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site. Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Clare Your Own Question
Clare, Family Solicitor
Category: Family Law
Satisfied Customers: 35054
Experience:  I have been a solicitor in High Street Practise since 1985 and have specialised in Family Law for the last 10 years
Type Your Family Law Question Here...
Clare is online now

I was a serving member of the Humberside Police. I was divorced

This answer was rated:

I was a serving member of the Humberside Police. I was divorced on 15/06/2001. I retired in 2002. An Earmarking Order was placed on my pension with a 55% - 45% on my maximum commutation.
My ex wife died in January 2005.
Recently the Government Actuary's Department has made a review of pensions of officers retiring between 01/12/2001 and 30/11/2006. I was notified of an underpayment of £14,120 + interest of £4,562 total £18,682.88.
The pension company are applying the Earmarking order. I am arguing that the Order lapsed in 2005, and at the time GAD made the decision there was no Earmarking Order in force.
HiThank you for your question My name is ***** ***** do my best to help you but I need some further information firstDoes the Overpayment relate to the whole of those 5 yearsClare
Customer: replied 2 years ago.
The commutation factor should have been reviewed on 01/12/2001 and yearly to 30/11/2006. The reviews were never carried out and therefore affected all officers who retired within that period.
Does it relate to the communtation alone?
Who inherited your ex's estate?
Customer: replied 2 years ago.
It only relates to the commutation there was no clause on my pension.
The four children and a new partner I believe
HiI am sorry but sadly the Pension Company are correct.This payment relates to monies which should have been paid at the time the Order was still in force, and accordingly are subject to the Order I am sorry not to give better news, but it would be unfair to mislead youPlease ask if you need further details.Clare
Clare and other Family Law Specialists are ready to help you
Customer: replied 2 years ago.
thank you
You are most welcome