Fed up with paying but not being able to see my children

NotSuchASmugMarriedNow wrote: »

OP - self employed people still have to pay child maintenance. its just that for some reason, people on this forum think that you don't. I've no idea what that is so but just to clarify, CHILD MAINTENANCE IS PAYABLE WHETHER YOU ARE EMPLOYED OR SELF EMPLOYED.

Harder to enforce, lots of both legal and not so legal loopholes that mean a nil assessment....my ex not paid in over 4 years now. Loves fine on his 'no income'.

As an example of the imbalance in the system, if the RP refuses to accept a direct pay arrangement the CMS will collect the payment from NRP and distribute the payment to RP. For this facility the NRP has a 20% fee added to the maintenance payment and the RP loses 4% of the amount they would ordinarily receive.

A balanced system? I think not!

This is not fully accurate. If an NRP tells CMS at the start of the case that they want Direct Pay and the RP refuses without the NRP having been given the opportunity to pay, the case stays Direct Pay. The government's consultation documents before the system was launched were quite clear on this as it represented a shift from the CSA position of both parents having to agree.

An NRP will only end up on Collect and Pay if they fail to express a preference and that's what the RP wants, or if they don't adhere to the Direct Pay payments. The government consultation papers also explained that was why their fee was higher - to provide a monetary incentive to pay voluntarily.

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/strengthening-families-promoting-parental-responsibility-the-future-of-child-maintenance

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/supporting-separated-families-securing-children-s-futures

I'm sorry, but that's not correct. Again, quite a lot was said on both those counts at consultation stage and it's one of Gingerbread's biggest complaints that neither of those statements is true. The subject of domestic violence and direct pay has most recently been discussed in the Select Committee hearings, among other elements of the service.

http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/work-and-pensions-committee/inquiries/parliament-2015/child-maintenance-16-17/

The only CMS cases that have different rules around selecting Direct Pay at the initial stage are those CSA cases that had active enforcement again ongoing at the time of case closure. That's it.

Excerpt from the 2nd consultation document previously linked:


Case closure order
12. Rather than simply closing clerical cases first, followed by the remaining cases on an oldest first basis as previously proposed, we will divide the caseload into five segments and then close them sequentially. Our focus is on maximising the flow of new money to children upfront and minimising the likelihood of disrupting ongoing payments in established enforced payment cases.

13. The following outlines the proposed order and contents of each of the five segments:
a. Segment 1: Nil assessed cases.
b. Segment 2: Nil compliant cases.
c. Segment 3: Cases handled off system.
d. Segment 4: Remaining system cases.
e. Segment 5: Cases with ongoing enforcement action.

14. Closing nil-assessed cases upfront is likely to mean an immediate increase in the number of positive maintenance liabilities, since many of these cases will not have been assessed for some years. We estimate that around 50,000 cases could move from being nil-assessed to being positively assessed should they apply to the 2012 scheme.

15. Closing nil-compliant cases, where no maintenance is owing despite there being an underlying liability, may seem counter intuitive, but it is precisely these cases that will benefit from an opportunity to consider afresh the options for maintenance open to them. Parents who decide to use the 2012 statutory scheme will experience a more efficient framework and transparent maintenance liabilities.

16. Cases handled off-system are those that the 2003 computer system was unable to administer on system. This segment excludes those cases that are currently the subject of ongoing enforcement, which are dealt with below Resolution agreed it is: ‘... appropriate to seek to reduce the problems associated with manual cases as the parents involved are likely to have suffered a reduced level of service’.

17. The fourth segment will see the closure, on an oldest first basis, of remaining cases other than those that are currently the subject of ongoing enforcement, which are dealt with below.

18. The final segment is the most challenging as this will contain all those cases where an enforced method of payment such as a Deduction from Earnings Order is in place; or where we are pursuing other forms of enforcement in an attempt to establish payments. The conclusion of segment 5 will mean that all ongoing maintenance cases will have been closed and, where parents choose to reapply, replaced by new cases on the 2012 scheme.

19. After all the existing CSA cases with ongoing maintenance liabilities have been closed, we
will then move all remaining arrears-only cases, for example, where there is no ongoing maintenance liability because the children have come of age, off the 1993 and 2003 computer systems so these systems can be turned off. These arrears will remain outstanding and the Child Maintenance Service will continue to work these cases as resource allows.

Payment continuity
20. In a change from our previous clean slate approach to all non-resident parents entering the 2012 scheme, we will ensure that non-resident parents who are in enforced methods of payment, or who are subject to ongoing enforcement action, whose cases are proactively closed will have to pass a positive compliance test. This is in order for these non-resident parents to be allowed to exercise the choice to pay via Direct Pay and thereby avoid collection fees, if a case is opened on the 2012 scheme.

21. It must be recognised that not all cases that are in enforced methods of payment are there because of recent non-compliance. It is, therefore, only fair that we apply a positive filter mechanism to ensure that those parents who are willing to pay through an unenforced method of payment are given a fair chance to do so and thereby avoid collection fees.

22. We will write to parents in segment 5 before their case is due to close to inform them the non- resident parent is to be given a compliance opportunity through which they will be able to demonstrate a willingness to comply voluntarily over a period of six months leading up to the closure of the case. We believe that a six-month test period strikes a sensible balance between ensuring the non-resident parent is capable and willing to pay voluntarily and ensuring all parties to the case are able to benefit from the new scheme without undue delay.

23. Depending on the characteristics of the case, we intend to offer the following three variants of compliance opportunity:

a. where there are arrears – the non-resident parent may agree to make regular, defined, voluntary payments to reduce these arrears. This would be on top of the continued enforced collection of ongoing maintenance;

b. no arrears – if the non-resident parent has no arrears, in addition to ongoing maintenance they will be given the opportunity to pay part of their ongoing maintenance voluntarily, while continuing to pay the balance by the enforced method; or

c. alternatively, we will also work with the banks to investigate the viability of freezing a lump sum surety from a credit card in a similar manner as car hire companies already do, thereby allowing the non-resident parent to pay the full ongoing liability via an unenforced method of payment but, in the event of non-payment of maintenance, we would deduct maintenance from that surety.

24. We will adopt a zero-tolerance approach within the compliance opportunity and it will be for
the non-resident parent to ensure they make agreed payments in full and on-time. If they fail, without good reason, to pay in full and on time throughout the entire period they will be returned to an enforced method of payment in the CSA scheme and deemed unlikely to pay for the purposes of the 2012 scheme. Similarly, if the non-resident parent fails to take up the compliance opportunity, they may likewise be deemed unlikely to pay.

25. Non-resident parents who are deemed unlikely to pay will then be placed directly into the 2012 scheme collection service with the same method of enforced payment as they were subject to in the 1993 or 2003 schemes, thereby minimising disruption to continuity of payment as parents move from the older schemes into the 2012 scheme.

My post was based on what CSA, CM Options and CMS told me when my case was transferring. Their wording was along the lines of "for cases such as yours, the NRP will not be allowed to use Direct Pay unless you make the request. The cases will go straight on to Collect & Pay" as it fell under the banners of domestic abuse in relationship, non-compliance and current enforcement.

Self employment with CSA is bad. In fact its the worst possible thing you can do. Self employed have a variable income. This doesnt work with the CSA or CMS way of doing things. You will pay a bit one year then an absolute crap load the next. If you find the next year isnt as profitable as the year before then i am afraid you are screwed. CSA wont care and will wait till the next full years tax return. You could be bankrupt and homeless before they re-calculate in your favor.

BUT

You could trade via a limited company. This way you actually set your salary to whatever you want. You will pay CSA/CMS based on your salary and dividends you take from the company and NOT the total income of the company.

Example:
You make 100k in a year trading as xyz ltd but only take a salary of 10k plus dividends of 10k. You pay the CSA based on a total income of 20k. The bonus is you still make regular payments and always know what you are going to be paying from year to year.