Posted March 1st, 2013
You can’t get divorced unless you get married. Aside from stating the obvious, I’m underlining the point that these days marriage seems little more than a precursor to divorce. It was only within the last week that I heard an acquaintance remark about how much more fun his divorce is compared to his marriage.
Granted, there is maybe a little relief when it all becomes absolute, but this rising trend that divorce is the main course after the entre of marriage is eroding at society. That sounds sweeping, but marriage just doesn’t seem to mean what it used to.
For better or worse is a redundant term as couples seem to run to divorce solicitors at the merest hint that they have actually married another human being just as flawed as they are. For better or slightly worse than better may be more apt.
When nothing but divorce will do though and there is no salvaging the wreckage of supposed wedded harmony, the last thing you need on top of the stress are spiralling costs and poor quality representation:
BBC News – Rising costs add to divorce woe, says Legal Ombudsman
Marriage should be more – much more than an exercise in saving for divorce. Divorce costs are starting to rival what you’ll spend on a wedding day; and it looks like there are some unscrupulous solicitors looking to capitalise on clients engaged in an acrimonious divorce. That’s abuse, whichever way you cut it up. That is praying on the vulnerable and taking advantage of their state of mind.
A common and highly justifiable complaint by clients and consumers in the financial services industry is that charges are not transparent and clear. The Retail Distribution Review was set up to combat that issue (although it’s clear that there are many providers and platforms that are quite happy to work around that and leave clients still scratching their head when it comes to exactly what they are paying!) and I would say it’s time that something similar was brought in to weed out the more unscrupulous solicitors that just want your money.
If you’re not happy with your legal representation and feel they are not acting in your best interests, then please get in touch by phone on 01204 663904 or by email – firstname.lastname@example.org. I can recommend excellent law firms that will act with your best interests at heart.
Image Credit: Flickr.com/stan
Whitewell Financial Planning Ltd is not responsible for the content of external websites
Posted November 27th, 2012
We all know, or know of people that have managed to get married abroad. It probably doesn’t work out much more expensive than a lavish ceremony on these shores. Wouldn’t it be curious to find an agency set up to help you get divorced abroad?
“They got divorced? When did that happen?”
“Yeah they’ve been divorced a couple of months now, they got divorced in the Seychelles!”
“Pffft…..it’s alright for some, me and the ex had to make to do with a divorce in Wolverhampton!”
In reality though, the only money held abroad in divorces tends to be offshore bank accounts that Mr. Taxman doesn’t know anything about……….yet!
That is, until a disgruntled soon to be ex-partner tells him about it, and handsomely rewarded they will be for it as well. Of course, marriage, or the dissolution thereof, doesn’t have any relevancy when it is an ex business partner blowing the whistle. However, according to HMRC, there are significant number of tip offs are coming from ex partners.
As the waters separating the terms “evasion” and “avoidance” get ever muddier (avoision if you will) it’s a made up word intended to nod at the notion that evasion and avoidance are becoming entwined but I’ll change it to aversion if you think it would make more sense, let’s not debate here on the rights, wrongs or other loopholes surrounding the whole Tax debate currently.
Fact is, it’s more incumbent on you to be up front. Hiding money from the tax man is one thing – and it can land you in prison. Hiding money that is due to a disgruntled ex is positively like dicing with death!
Be up front, and then you might avoid finding yourself being upfront in front of a Judge.
image credit: flickr.com/banjo_d
Posted November 20th, 2012
…..and that figure is unnervingly low. There are nearly twice as many women over 50 without a pension when compared with men over 50.
It seems clear then, that many women are not even asking the question upon agreeing a divorce settlement. It is more important now than ever before that the question of sufficiency in retirement is tabled during in settlement talks. It is just as relevant as child care and the split of matrimonial assets.
It’s pretty straight forward. If you have sacrificed a career to raise children, or even settled in a job just to help make ends meet within the marriage, there is a fair question of income equalisation after retirement that needs to be asked and answered.
I am an IFA with expertise in the field of Pensions on Divorce. If you are going through a divorce and need advice, or if the issue has never been raised for you and you feel that this is something that you would like to talk about then please get in touch:
Image credit: flickr.com/tax credits
Posted February 8th, 2010
In many occupational schemes (especially the statutory ones – e.g. Police, Armed Forces) there has been a disparity between the normal retirement age of the member and that given to a pension credit member (the ex spouse). For example, the member can retire from the pension scheme at age 52 but the ex spouse cannot retire until age 60.
In addition, where the pension is in payment, there will be an immediate reduction of benefit for the member but the ex spouse’s pension will not kick in until age 60 (which could be many years away).
This issue has been neatly termed as “income gap syndrome” and it has been found not to go against the anti discrimination provisions of European Law.
Of course, this assumes that the ex spouse decides upon an internal transfer as the means to facilitate the pension share. There may be many reasons why the other option (an external transfer) is appropriate, but there will many situations where the only choice available is an internal transfer.
Regulations which came into force in April 2009 made provision for a partial solution to this issue which some of the statutory schemes are now starting to implement. The NHS scheme will now permit pension credit members to draw benefits after age 50 (or 55 from 6 April 2010) whilst an Armed Forces (2005) pension credit member can draw benefits at age 55. It should be noted that actuarial reductions will apply for early payment.
From a financial planning point of view it is wise to review the drawing of a pension credit benefit in line with your overall goals and objectives to ensure that any reduction is understood and budgeted for.
For more information on this please contact me on 0800 092 1229 or contact me by email, email@example.com