Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • samo8076
    • By samo8076 8th Dec 16, 12:30 PM
    • 191Posts
    • 206Thanks
    samo8076
    CMS Payments, what effects them?
    • #1
    • 8th Dec 16, 12:30 PM
    CMS Payments, what effects them? 8th Dec 16 at 12:30 PM
    Hi,

    The CMS have been in touch about a case between myself and my ex. She wants to move the case to them instead of sorting something out between ourselves, therefore prompting an income review on my part.

    I have had a pay rise in the last year, but I have also a significant mortgage and other financial commitments (loans for example).

    My question is will they take my mortgage and other commitments into consideration, or just expect me to pay according to my gross weekly salary as outlined on the Government Website?

    Thanks.
Page 2
    • samo8076
    • By samo8076 9th Dec 16, 11:57 AM
    • 191 Posts
    • 206 Thanks
    samo8076
    You seem to think you have a choice....


    Let me remove that from your mind right now.


    Either you pay what you are required to support YOUR children, or the CMS will collect it from your wages and charge you for the privilege. So it'll cost you MORE.


    CMS rules have been around for years, should've been aware of them.


    Your 'story' is largely irrelevant, the facts are: you either have a child(ren), or you don't. If you do, you need to pay according to the law.


    Your morals aren't even in question here
    Originally posted by Guest101
    i wasn't even aware of the CMS until i received a letter a couple of months ago from the CSA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I had NO say in the CMS being involved, and because the mother wouldn't even try to come to an arrangement with me through the CSA, i have to put up and shut up!!!!!!!!!
    • Guest101
    • By Guest101 9th Dec 16, 12:00 PM
    • 14,443 Posts
    • 14,089 Thanks
    Guest101
    i wasn't even aware of the CMS until i received a letter a couple of months ago from the CSA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I had NO say in the CMS being involved, and because the mother wouldn't even try to come to an arrangement with me through the CSA, i have to put up and shut up!!!!!!!!!
    Originally posted by samo8076
    So in two months you haven't looked up the most fundamental principle - calculated on gross pay?


    Anyway that aside - you're confused, the CSA transferred your case to the CMS. (it happens ALOT)


    So you now know exactly how much you must pay, by law, for your children.


    Pay it or they will add a collection fee and take it from your wages.


    I think rather than 'put up and shut up', try 'man up' - why are you so opposed to supporting YOUR children?
    • MataNui
    • By MataNui 9th Dec 16, 4:07 PM
    • 771 Posts
    • 387 Thanks
    MataNui
    CSA has been steadily transferring cases over to CMS for probably a couple of years now. Its inevitable that you would be transferred at some point (unless your case is due to close before the CSA closes for good).

    There really isnt any option here. CMS is the replacement for CSA. They have the same purpose and powers to make your life beyond hell. As far as i am aware there are only 2 ways to reduce your payments.
    1: Die
    2: Go self employed via a ltd company.

    Also you need to be aware that if you get a pay rise they will recalculate. If you get a pay reduction they wont (unless it would reduce your payments by more than 25% and even then only after you get a full years tax records to prove it).
    • Guest101
    • By Guest101 9th Dec 16, 4:10 PM
    • 14,443 Posts
    • 14,089 Thanks
    Guest101
    CSA has been steadily transferring cases over to CMS for probably a couple of years now. Its inevitable that you would be transferred at some point (unless your case is due to close before the CSA closes for good).

    There really isnt any option here. CMS is the replacement for CSA. They have the same purpose and powers to make your life beyond hell. As far as i am aware there are only 2 ways to reduce your payments.
    1: Die
    2: Go self employed via a ltd company.

    Also you need to be aware that if you get a pay rise they will recalculate. If you get a pay reduction they wont (unless it would reduce your payments by more than 25% and even then only after you get a full years tax records to prove it).
    Originally posted by MataNui


    Or pay what you should....
    • 13Kent
    • By 13Kent 10th Dec 16, 10:20 AM
    • 998 Posts
    • 3,589 Thanks
    13Kent
    It's all very well for people to say sell your home and move into a smaller place, it's not always that easy. In our case we needed space for the children to come and stay at weekends, a smaller place would not have allowed for that. Rental would have been more than the mortgage. We needed a decent car that would make the nearly 4 hour round trip to pick up the children safely, so we had outgoings for that. (Once we had our own children we also needed a bigger car that would accommodate 4 children). My husband was also paying off a joint loan which he and his ex took out - he was making the full repayments and the CSA didn't consider her share of that. We lived with hardly any spare cash for a number of years as the amount the CSA took crippled us. We were not spending our income frivolously, we had hardly any money to live once the bills had been paid, meanwhile the PWC had the house completely redone from top to bottom including the garden landscaping, new massive tv and a 3 week holiday to Disney Florida
    (but according to the CSA's calculations she had nil income).

    To add insult to injury had we been on the CSA 2 system according to the CSA's own calculator our liability would have been half what we are paying - how was that fair?

    I'm afraid I can't offer any solutions, we tried every way to be allowed to pay a fair amount, including getting our mp involved, (we wanted to be transferred to the new system but were not allowed) we just had to struggle along, things are not so bad as they were now, as there is only one child still in the system (the liability didn't half when one child was taken off as may have been expected) but still sometimes there isn't much left at the end of the month and we are looking forward to the end of 2017 when our liability will come to an end - the remaining "child" will be nearly 20 by then !

    • Guest101
    • By Guest101 12th Dec 16, 1:58 PM
    • 14,443 Posts
    • 14,089 Thanks
    Guest101
    It's all very well for people to say sell your home and move into a smaller place, it's not always that easy. In our case we needed space for the children to come and stay at weekends, a smaller place would not have allowed for that. Rental would have been more than the mortgage. We needed a decent car that would make the nearly 4 hour round trip to pick up the children safely, so we had outgoings for that. (Once we had our own children we also needed a bigger car that would accommodate 4 children). My husband was also paying off a joint loan which he and his ex took out - he was making the full repayments and the CSA didn't consider her share of that. - that's up to him to pursue her civilly in the courts. We lived with hardly any spare cash for a number of years as the amount the CSA took crippled us. We were not spending our income frivolously, we had hardly any money to live once the bills had been paid, meanwhile the PWC had the house completely redone from top to bottom including the garden landscaping, new massive tv and a 3 week holiday to Disney Florida
    (but according to the CSA's calculations she had nil income). - wouldn't make a difference if she had an income of 20million per hour.

    To add insult to injury had we been on the CSA 2 system according to the CSA's own calculator our liability would have been half what we are paying - how was that fair?

    I'm afraid I can't offer any solutions, we tried every way to be allowed to pay a fair amount, including getting our mp involved, (we wanted to be transferred to the new system but were not allowed) we just had to struggle along, things are not so bad as they were now, as there is only one child still in the system (the liability didn't half when one child was taken off as may have been expected) but still sometimes there isn't much left at the end of the month and we are looking forward to the end of 2017 when our liability will come to an end - the remaining "child" will be nearly 20 by then !
    Originally posted by 13Kent


    Whilst you have some valid points, they're children, and both parents should provide financial support
    • 13Kent
    • By 13Kent 12th Dec 16, 6:43 PM
    • 998 Posts
    • 3,589 Thanks
    13Kent
    I completely agree, so why did the CSA deem her to have nil income when she was working? Because she was getting child tax credit which is a benefit therefore the CSA said she was on benefits, and therefore didn't consider that she could contribute any amount at all to the maintenance needed.

    My husband has never not provided financial support for his children, he has never ever missed a payment, but he would just have liked to have been asked to pay a fair amount which left him with some money left each month to have a reasonable standard of living himself. Seeing that if he'd been on CSA 2 he would have paid half the amount he was paying and that would have given him a better standard of living made it even harder.

    Had he not got together with me I don't know how he would have managed financially, as I supported him during the early years when he was left with just his car and his clothes and the CSA payments didn't leave him with enough money to live on - some weekends he couldn't see his children because he couldn't afford the fuel for the 4 hour round trip.

    Once we were together my home provided him with somewhere to bring his children so that he was able to keep regular contact with them, I fed him and gave him somewhere to stay so that he just about kept his head financially above water, and keep his job, but according to the CSA he had been left with enough money each month to live on, but I can assure you that wasn't the case, and as I said before he didn't smoke or drink, or spend the his money on luxuries. Thankfully we are many years down the line now and there is a light at the end of the tunnel, but not every NRP is fortunate to have someone there to support them both financially and emotionally through it all.
    Last edited by 13Kent; 12-12-2016 at 10:22 PM.

    • HoneyNutLoop
    • By HoneyNutLoop 13th Dec 16, 9:22 AM
    • 465 Posts
    • 374 Thanks
    HoneyNutLoop
    This thread quite clearly demonstrates that there are some people who were much better off under the original 1993 scheme - as demonstrated by the op - and some who were much worse off - as demonstrated by 13Kent.

    It also shows you don't get to choose which scheme you're on or when you get to move from one to the other to achieve the best financial outcome for yourself.

    The government has introduced the successive new schemes to try to address issues of fairness raised by past parents, and also set out legal parameters as to when and how existing cases will move from one scheme to the other.

    To the op, if it's unfair to you that you must pay more under the new scheme, wasn't it unfair to your ex that you paid less under the old one? How exactly are you arriving at your definition of fair?
    I often use a tablet to post, so sometimes my posts will have random letters inserted, or entirely the wrong word if autocorrect is trying to wind me up. Hopefully you'll still know what I mean.
    • samo8076
    • By samo8076 13th Dec 16, 9:38 AM
    • 191 Posts
    • 206 Thanks
    samo8076
    This thread quite clearly demonstrates that there are some people who were much better off under the original 1993 scheme - as demonstrated by the op - and some who were much worse off - as demonstrated by 13Kent.

    It also shows you don't get to choose which scheme you're on or when you get to move from one to the other to achieve the best financial outcome for yourself.

    The government has introduced the successive new schemes to try to address issues of fairness raised by past parents, and also set out legal parameters as to when and how existing cases will move from one scheme to the other.

    To the op, if it's unfair to you that you must pay more under the new scheme, wasn't it unfair to your ex that you paid less under the old one? How exactly are you arriving at your definition of fair?
    Originally posted by HoneyNutLoop
    Hi, its more of the fact its gone from net to gross. As stated id happily pay the required amount, but its a massive change from net to gross, which, if we all knew that was going to be the case (like i said i had no idea the CMS existed until the csa told me) i wouldnt have taken out loans or whatnot.

    Bit of an update, i have asked the CMS to speak to the mother on my behalf and put forward the case of going for family arrangement. Just waiting to hear back.
    • Guest101
    • By Guest101 13th Dec 16, 9:59 AM
    • 14,443 Posts
    • 14,089 Thanks
    Guest101
    I completely agree, so why did the CSA deem her to have nil income when she was working? Because she was getting child tax credit which is a benefit therefore the CSA said she was on benefits, and therefore didn't consider that she could contribute any amount at all to the maintenance needed. - No. Her income is totally excluded whether on benefits or not. He was not expected to support 100% of the cost.

    My husband has never not provided financial support for his children, he has never ever missed a payment, but he would just have liked to have been asked to pay a fair amount which left him with some money left each month to have a reasonable standard of living himself. - that unfortunately is down to him to increase his income. Seeing that if he'd been on CSA 2 he would have paid half the amount he was paying and that would have given him a better standard of living made it even harder. - that I do agree with.

    Had he not got together with me I don't know how he would have managed financially, as I supported him during the early years when he was left with just his car and his clothes and the CSA payments didn't leave him with enough money to live on - some weekends he couldn't see his children because he couldn't afford the fuel for the 4 hour round trip. - Why did he move 2 hours away? or did she move?

    Once we were together my home provided him with somewhere to bring his children so that he was able to keep regular contact with them, I fed him and gave him somewhere to stay so that he just about kept his head financially above water, and keep his job, but according to the CSA he had been left with enough money each month to live on, but I can assure you that wasn't the case, and as I said before he didn't smoke or drink, or spend the his money on luxuries. Thankfully we are many years down the line now and there is a light at the end of the tunnel, but not every NRP is fortunate to have someone there to support them both financially and emotionally through it all.
    Originally posted by 13Kent
    The CMS system is fairer, but to be honest it comes down to a number of issues.


    Personal achievement being the most paramount
    • Guest101
    • By Guest101 13th Dec 16, 10:00 AM
    • 14,443 Posts
    • 14,089 Thanks
    Guest101
    Hi, its more of the fact its gone from net to gross. As stated id happily pay the required amount, but its a massive change from net to gross, which, if we all knew that was going to be the case (like i said i had no idea the CMS existed until the csa told me) i wouldnt have taken out loans or whatnot.

    Bit of an update, i have asked the CMS to speak to the mother on my behalf and put forward the case of going for family arrangement. Just waiting to hear back.
    Originally posted by samo8076
    You'll still need to pay the minimum though, just not the collect and pay extra
    • HoneyNutLoop
    • By HoneyNutLoop 13th Dec 16, 10:06 AM
    • 465 Posts
    • 374 Thanks
    HoneyNutLoop
    Yes, it's gone from net to gross. However, the percentage rates also decreased compared to the 2003 scheme.

    If you earn £30,000 gross and pay for one child, you pay £69.04 a week under CMS. The equivalent net pay is £23,567 on which you'd pay £68 under the 2003 scheme.

    If you earn £80,000 gross and pay for one child, you pay £162.08 a week under CMS. The equivalent net pay is £53867 on which you'd pay £155 under the 2003 scheme.

    I suspect the difference in payments due in your case will mostly be because of your pay rise, not switching schemes. Your post implies you didn't report it to the CSA to trigger a payment review, so it's only being picked up now because of the switch?

    Those who pay significantly more under CMS are people who had taxable benefits as part of their pay package, such as company cars. The taxable benefit didn't count as income under the 2003 scheme but does under CMS.
    Last edited by HoneyNutLoop; 13-12-2016 at 3:19 PM.
    I often use a tablet to post, so sometimes my posts will have random letters inserted, or entirely the wrong word if autocorrect is trying to wind me up. Hopefully you'll still know what I mean.
    • samo8076
    • By samo8076 19th Dec 16, 1:42 PM
    • 191 Posts
    • 206 Thanks
    samo8076
    So iv ended up paying the estimated amount based on my wage (£299.91) The amount/case will be reviewed Dec 2017, though as my child is 16 in July, i shall be requesting a review then to know what their plan is for the new term.

    She refused to have any dealings direct, so therefore, I have to shut up and put up.
    • Guest101
    • By Guest101 30th Dec 16, 10:11 AM
    • 14,443 Posts
    • 14,089 Thanks
    Guest101
    So iv ended up paying the estimated amount based on my wage (£299.91) The amount/case will be reviewed Dec 2017, though as my child is 16 in July, i shall be requesting a review then to know what their plan is for the new term.

    She refused to have any dealings direct, so therefore, I have to shut up and put up.
    Originally posted by samo8076
    It's not relevant as CMS is payable until they're 18 at the earliest.
    • samo8076
    • By samo8076 30th Dec 16, 11:18 AM
    • 191 Posts
    • 206 Thanks
    samo8076
    It's not relevant as CMS is payable until they're 18 at the earliest.
    Originally posted by Guest101
    Wrong. If they go in to employment at 16/17 then it stops
    • Guest101
    • By Guest101 30th Dec 16, 3:04 PM
    • 14,443 Posts
    • 14,089 Thanks
    Guest101
    Wrong. If they go in to employment at 16/17 then it stops
    Originally posted by samo8076


    Indeed, my mistake. Glad you want your kids to stop education so you can save money
    • samo8076
    • By samo8076 30th Dec 16, 3:07 PM
    • 191 Posts
    • 206 Thanks
    samo8076
    Indeed, my mistake. Glad you want your kids to stop education so you can save money
    Originally posted by Guest101
    I didn't say that I wanted it stop, just pointing out that you are wrong.
    • Johnny Barnes10
    • By Johnny Barnes10 6th Jul 17, 1:56 PM
    • 248 Posts
    • 79 Thanks
    Johnny Barnes10

    Those who pay significantly more under CMS are people who had taxable benefits as part of their pay package, such as company cars. The taxable benefit didn't count as income under the 2003 scheme but does under CMS.
    Originally posted by HoneyNutLoop
    This is where it is unfair, I am in process of arguing my case (always paid for my kids, on time and have them on a regular basis). There is no monetary value to my car so why should it be taken into account?!

    I too had no letter, CSA claimed they sent me one saying my case closed 10/2/17. I still made my regular payments. CMS started 5/6/17. Amazing how their figure, and my P60 amount is over £13k difference!!!
    • DUTR
    • By DUTR 6th Jul 17, 6:01 PM
    • 10,824 Posts
    • 6,134 Thanks
    DUTR
    This is where it is unfair, I am in process of arguing my case (always paid for my kids, on time and have them on a regular basis). There is no monetary value to my car so why should it be taken into account?!

    I too had no letter, CSA claimed they sent me one saying my case closed 10/2/17. I still made my regular payments. CMS started 5/6/17. Amazing how their figure, and my P60 amount is over £13k difference!!!
    Originally posted by Johnny Barnes10
    What a thread ressurection eh?
    • Johnny Barnes10
    • By Johnny Barnes10 8th Jul 17, 9:14 PM
    • 248 Posts
    • 79 Thanks
    Johnny Barnes10
    Didn't think it warranted a new one, just wanted to let off some steam!
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

105Posts Today

2,000Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Byebye! I'm about to stop work & twitter, to instead spend glorious time with Mrs & mini MSE. Wishing u a lovely summer. See u in 10 days.

  • WARNING Did you start Uni in or after 2012? The interest's rising to 6.1%; yet it doesnt work like you think. See https://t.co/IQ8f0Vyetu RT

  • RT @JanaBeee: @MartinSLewis Boris is the anomaly (coffee), the others are versions of normal (beer). Lots of same candidates = vote share d?

  • Follow Martin