What is a pension attachment order?
A pension attachment order can be used on divorce, dissolution of a civil partnership or as part of a judicial separation agreement. A pension attachment order requires payment by the pension company of some or all of a policyholder’s pension benefits to the ex-spouse or ex-civil partner, when the pension becomes payable to the policyholder. These benefits can be in the form of periodical payments (numerous payments over time and at specified intervals) or a lump sum (a single payment). If a pension attachment order is in existence and the pension concerned is transferred from one provider to another, the attachment order will be transferred to the new fund.
In practice, pension attachment orders are rarely used, as courts prefer to use pension sharing orders. Instead of paying the ex-spouse or ex-civil partner out of the policyholder’s fund, pension sharing orders divide rights under a pension scheme so that each spouse has their own independent rights under that scheme or under two separate schemes. For further details, read What is a Pension Sharing Order?
Related FAQs
A separation agreement is a legal agreement entered into by two individuals who have decided to end their romantic relationship and go their separate ways. Parties entering into separation agreements can be married, civil partners or cohabiting couples. The separation agreement sets out the agreed financial arrangements for the period of separation; it does not end the marriage or civil partnership. To end a marriage or civil partnership, a divorce or dissolution is required. It is important to acknowledge that the court’s jurisdiction in financial remedy proceedings on divorce can override the terms of a separation agreement.
Some couples may wish to enter into a separation agreement if they do not wish to divorce for religious, cultural or personal reasons. Alternatively, a separation agreement can be the first step toward divorce proceedings, or it can be used as a test to see if separation is the best thing for the couple.
Separation agreements are usually only appropriate where parties have already separated, or are going to separate in the near future, but do not want to start divorce proceedings straight away. If you would like some advice on whether a separation agreement would be the right thing for you and your partner, our specialist team of family solicitors would be glad to provide some legal advice.
Unfortunately, losses caused by pandemics are not often covered expressly under standard policies, as the risk has been difficult for insurers to price and understand.
Even where additional cover in respect of notifiable diseases has been purchased, it typically will not include Covid-19 within the range of diseases covered by the policy. If the policy includes a list of notifiable diseases, and which does not include Covid-19, it is very unlikely that cover will be available for pandemic-relates losses.
The most common types of covers that could be afforded by insurance policies for coronavirus-related losses and liabilities are traditional business interruption insurance, contingent business interruption insurance, liability insurance, as well as cancellation and abandonment insurance.
HM Treasury have no current plans to pause the collection of apprenticeship levy payments from employers, therefore levy-paying employers must continue to make payments. There is also no plan to extend the 24 month period allowed to spend levy funds.
The formal Government position relating to construction sites is that construction work should continue on site if it can be conducted safely, and the Business Secretary, Alok Sharma, has written an open letter to the UK Construction Industry thanking it for all its help in the current crisis. The letter also confirms the Government’s current official policy of keeping construction sites open. The full text of the letter can be downloaded.
This also remains the formal position of the Construction Leadership Council (CLC) with the qualification that sites should operate in accordance with Public Health England instructions; without compromising health and safety; and in accordance with the Site Operating Procedures issued last week by the CLC.
In practice, many construction sites have been closed by national developers and house builders due to difficulties with staffing and supply chain, and practical issues with compliance with the social distancing and site operating procedures.
The Scottish Government has recently issued guidance that all non-essential construction sites, which includes housing, office, leisure, schools and retail sites, must close to reduce the risk of the spread of Covid-19.
On 30th April 2020, the CMA issued a guidance note setting out its views about how the law operates in relation to refunds.
Where a contract is not performed as agreed, the CMA considers that in most cases, consumer protection law will generally allow consumers to obtain a refund.
This includes the following situations:
- Where a business has cancelled a contract without providing any of the promised goods or services
- Where no service is provided by a business, for example because this is prevented by Government public health measures
- A consumer cancels, or is prevented from receiving any services, because Government public health measures mean they are not allowed to use the services.
In the CMA’s view, this will usually apply even where the consumer has paid what the business says is a non-refundable deposit or advance payment.
This positon reflects the CMA’s previous guidance which they had issued in relation to the requirement of fairness in consumer contracts under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which was that a clause in a contract that gives a blanket entitlement to a trader to cancel a contract and retain deposits paid is likely to be unfair, and therefore unenforceable – it would be unfair to a consumer to lose their deposit if the contract is terminated without any fault on their part, and if they had received no benefit for the payments made.
The CMA’s latest guidance therefore confirms their view that the Covid-19 outbreak does not change the basic rights of the consumer, and that they should not have to pay for goods or services that they do not receive.