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
    • macadoogle
    • By macadoogle 4th Oct 17, 3:42 PM
    • 4Posts
    • 0Thanks
    macadoogle
    Child maintenance service - confused!
    • #1
    • 4th Oct 17, 3:42 PM
    Child maintenance service - confused! 4th Oct 17 at 3:42 PM
    Hi

    I am so confused. My partner pays his ex wife maintenance every month and has since they split. He signed the house over to her and she kept the car that he still pays for this was agreed as part payment for the maintenance.

    Anyway god only knows why but she went to the CMS who sent him a letter stating what his wages are and how much he needs to pay every month. They have his wage INCORRECT by over £10,000!! So on top of the £150 for car he will have to pay another £420 a month. When looking into this the CMS have requested his income from HMRC they take into account a company car (that he pays over £200 a month on) and other things. How can they do this when it is not an income????

    Calculations today show he has £73 a month to live on as he has other debts. We have just bought a house together getting one big enough for his daughter and my (older) son. He has his daughter twice a week for tea and every other weekend from a Friday tea time to a Sunday at 6.30pm. He now cannot afford to do anything with her ... How can this be right???

    Can anyone help/advise???
Page 1
    • iammumtoone
    • By iammumtoone 4th Oct 17, 4:30 PM
    • 5,065 Posts
    • 10,326 Thanks
    iammumtoone
    • #2
    • 4th Oct 17, 4:30 PM
    • #2
    • 4th Oct 17, 4:30 PM
    The amount that has been set by the CMS is what he has to pay. He does not have to pay the extras (ie car)

    His ex would be expected to pay for the car herself possibly out of the CMS money if she wished.

    Is the car on lease? whos name is the agrement in?
    • macadoogle
    • By macadoogle 4th Oct 17, 5:50 PM
    • 4 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    macadoogle
    • #3
    • 4th Oct 17, 5:50 PM
    • #3
    • 4th Oct 17, 5:50 PM
    Hi thanks for your reply.

    i know he is going to get rid of the car but that still leaves him with £73 a month to live on... Hows that fair??
    • CurlySue2017
    • By CurlySue2017 5th Oct 17, 9:01 AM
    • 13 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    CurlySue2017
    • #4
    • 5th Oct 17, 9:01 AM
    • #4
    • 5th Oct 17, 9:01 AM
    It is far from fair.

    We have been battling with the CMS over them using incorrect, out of date information for nearly two years now.....they are idiots.

    Unfortunately they are idiots that you are stuck with, as are we.

    Sorry to hear about your situation - there are many more in the same boat I'm afraid.
    • Comms69
    • By Comms69 5th Oct 17, 11:35 AM
    • 486 Posts
    • 358 Thanks
    Comms69
    • #5
    • 5th Oct 17, 11:35 AM
    • #5
    • 5th Oct 17, 11:35 AM
    Uhm it's perfectly correct to include benefit in kind (eg a company car)
    • MataNui
    • By MataNui 5th Oct 17, 11:55 AM
    • 830 Posts
    • 421 Thanks
    MataNui
    • #6
    • 5th Oct 17, 11:55 AM
    • #6
    • 5th Oct 17, 11:55 AM
    Uhm it's perfectly correct to include benefit in kind (eg a company car)
    Originally posted by Comms69
    Yes. It is. Though the OP states incorrect by over 10k. 10k per year is one hell of BIK. Must be quite a nice car.

    I have posted on this particular forum before about the dangers of a company car and the CMS. OP would be far better off just forgoing the benefit entirely. Though CMS will continue to assess him as though he has it for the next year at least with no hopes of any refund for them charging incorrectly.
    • Comms69
    • By Comms69 5th Oct 17, 12:07 PM
    • 486 Posts
    • 358 Thanks
    Comms69
    • #7
    • 5th Oct 17, 12:07 PM
    • #7
    • 5th Oct 17, 12:07 PM
    Yes. It is. Though the OP states incorrect by over 10k. 10k per year is one hell of BIK. Must be quite a nice car.

    I have posted on this particular forum before about the dangers of a company car and the CMS. OP would be far better off just forgoing the benefit entirely. Though CMS will continue to assess him as though he has it for the next year at least with no hopes of any refund for them charging incorrectly.
    Originally posted by MataNui
    Indeed, but there could be other benefits too
    • noodledoodle78
    • By noodledoodle78 5th Oct 17, 2:38 PM
    • 213 Posts
    • 248 Thanks
    noodledoodle78
    • #8
    • 5th Oct 17, 2:38 PM
    • #8
    • 5th Oct 17, 2:38 PM
    It would be woth confirming with the CMS that his child stays with him 2 nights a fortnight. If they aren't already aware of this, this will have an impact on the amount he has to pay and will reduce his liability.

    I would also be cancelling the car payments as you have stated they were partly in lieu of child maintenance payments.
    Sealed Pot Challenge No. 286
    • Colin A
    • By Colin A 5th Oct 17, 3:07 PM
    • 2 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Colin A
    • #9
    • 5th Oct 17, 3:07 PM
    In the same boat, helpless against the CMS
    • #9
    • 5th Oct 17, 3:07 PM
    Your story is scarcely similar to my family.
    I also handed over a house and car in a “clean break” funicular settlement for divorce.
    I offered maintenance at a reasonable level but my ex chose to go through the CSA and ended up getting less than I offered.
    CMS is worse than the CSA they charge 20% on top of any payment. If you have a bitter ex this is another opportunity to punish my new family with the 20% just going into the government coffers and not to any children
    • CurlySue2017
    • By CurlySue2017 5th Oct 17, 3:13 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    CurlySue2017
    Uhm it's perfectly correct to include benefit in kind (eg a company car)
    Originally posted by Comms69
    Is it perfectly correct for them to base payments on information from the HMRC dating back to 2014, when they have been sent up to date wage slips, admit that they have them sitting there, but have taken no action?
    • CurlySue2017
    • By CurlySue2017 5th Oct 17, 3:14 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    CurlySue2017
    It would be woth confirming with the CMS that his child stays with him 2 nights a fortnight. If they aren't already aware of this, this will have an impact on the amount he has to pay and will reduce his liability.

    I would also be cancelling the car payments as you have stated they were partly in lieu of child maintenance payments.
    Originally posted by noodledoodle78
    Definitely agree with this
    • Colin A
    • By Colin A 5th Oct 17, 3:16 PM
    • 2 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Colin A
    Few spelling errors there sorry. Scarily not scarcely and financial not funicular. Don’t you just love predictive text.
    My advice is carefully reference all payments and if possible avoid variations in income. Having a good financial year then a bad one means a relatively high cms payment in comparison to salary.
    Always keep and log evidence anything verbal stated by the CMS is probably not true. I have been told to keep receipts then told they were worthless. Told to reference direct pay payments as maintenance only for my ex to say she thought the payments were just “pocket money” and claim £9000 back payments from the CMS. Based on here say. Even when I provide bank statement evidence and my daughter stating she has not had pocket money in 12 years and an empty bank account the CMS continue only to believe verbal account from my ex.
    • Comms69
    • By Comms69 5th Oct 17, 3:16 PM
    • 486 Posts
    • 358 Thanks
    Comms69
    Is it perfectly correct for them to base payments on information from the HMRC dating back to 2014, when they have been sent up to date wage slips, admit that they have them sitting there, but have taken no action?
    Originally posted by CurlySue2017
    Unless the difference is over a certain amount (I believe £5,000) then you must ask them to review officially.
    • Comms69
    • By Comms69 5th Oct 17, 3:17 PM
    • 486 Posts
    • 358 Thanks
    Comms69
    Your story is scarcely similar to my family.
    I also handed over a house and car in a “clean break” funicular settlement for divorce.
    I offered maintenance at a reasonable level but my ex chose to go through the CSA and ended up getting less than I offered.
    CMS is worse than the CSA they charge 20% on top of any payment. If you have a bitter ex this is another opportunity to punish my new family with the 20% just going into the government coffers and not to any children
    Originally posted by Colin A


    You don't have to agree to collect and pay, if you simply agree to pay.
    • CurlySue2017
    • By CurlySue2017 5th Oct 17, 3:18 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    CurlySue2017
    Unless the difference is over a certain amount (I believe £5,000) then you must ask them to review officially.
    Originally posted by Comms69
    Yes I know that. Done that three times. Nothing. Any other suggestions?
    • CurlySue2017
    • By CurlySue2017 5th Oct 17, 3:19 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    CurlySue2017
    You don't have to agree to collect and pay, if you simply agree to pay.
    Originally posted by Comms69
    And also if the ex agrees, which they don't in many cases and then you are stuck.
    • newbutold
    • By newbutold 6th Oct 17, 1:51 PM
    • 659 Posts
    • 1,048 Thanks
    newbutold
    And also if the ex agrees, which they don't in many cases and then you are stuck.
    Originally posted by CurlySue2017
    This isn't correct. The ex doesn't have to agree, you can apply to pay direct and as long as you don't have any arrears and you have paid regularly, the CMS will allow you to. They will workout a payment schedule for you and pass on the PWC's bank details to you for you to pay direct.

    They can only enforce pay and collect when they believe you won't pay, i.e. Arrears or a history of not paying.

    We are on pay direct, despite my partners ex wanting pay & collect - very bitter woman!
    If my posts have random wrong words, please blame the damn autocorrect not me
    • Comms69
    • By Comms69 6th Oct 17, 2:08 PM
    • 486 Posts
    • 358 Thanks
    Comms69
    This isn't correct. The ex doesn't have to agree, you can apply to pay direct and as long as you don't have any arrears and you have paid regularly, the CMS will allow you to. They will workout a payment schedule for you and pass on the PWC's bank details to you for you to pay direct.

    They can only enforce pay and collect when they believe you won't pay, i.e. Arrears or a history of not paying.

    We are on pay direct, despite my partners ex wanting pay & collect - very bitter woman!
    Originally posted by newbutold
    I was 99% sure this was the case, but wondered if it had changed - thanks for clarifying
    • daddydodo
    • By daddydodo 6th Oct 17, 2:08 PM
    • 31 Posts
    • 19 Thanks
    daddydodo
    Yes I know that. Done that three times. Nothing. Any other suggestions?
    Originally posted by CurlySue2017
    You need a 25% difference in gross salary ( for CMS this is gross salary - pension contribution) before the CMS will change the monthly payment outside of the annual review. Increase paension contribution by 25% for 2 months and ask CMS to recalculate.
    • HoneyNutLoop
    • By HoneyNutLoop 6th Oct 17, 3:13 PM
    • 475 Posts
    • 376 Thanks
    HoneyNutLoop
    When you sent in the wage slips, did you also send the latest tax year’s P11D to show the taxable benefit amount? If not, the reason why they aren’t doing anything is because you have only sent in partial evidence of relevant income. Until you send in evidence of al relevant income, including taxable benefits they’ll keep using the figure from HMRC.

    If when you add in the P11D figure to the taxable PAYE figure shown on the wage slips the overall income is not more than 25% different than the HMRC figure, then they won’t change it in any event because tolerance hasn’t been breached.

    Assuming his daughter is the only child he is paying maintenance for and you have made CMS aware of your son (assuming he lives with you) and the care arrangements for his daughter, that would suggest the income figure they are using is around £55,000. For them to use an income figure based on your evidence, his annual income including BIK would need to be below £41,250. Is it?

    (Calculated as follows:
    £420 / 6 x 7 = £490 a month without Band A shared care allowance
    £490 / 12% for 1 child = £40.83 as 1% of income after relevant child deduction
    £40.83 x 100% = £4083.33 monthly income after relevant child deduction
    £4083.33 / 89% = £45.88 as 1% of income before relevant child deduction
    £45.88 x 100% = £4588.01 total monthly income used in calculation
    £4588.01 x 12 = £55,056 total taxable annual income used by CMS to calculate £420/month payments)


    It may be you have to look at other areas of your partner’s budget to increase his £73 a month disposable income. You say the figure is this amount because he has to pay other debts. Has he contacted any of the debt charities to see if there is anything that can be done to reduce how much he is having to pay to those other debts each month?

    And as others have said, if he can cancel the car payment that immediately gives him a further £150 a month. Additionally, have you done a financial check up to make sure you’re getting the best deals on all your contracts/services or considered posting an SOA on the debt free wannabe board to see if there are other budget savings your household could make?
    Last edited by HoneyNutLoop; 06-10-2017 at 3:23 PM. Reason: errors
    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.
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

165Posts Today

2,326Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @LordsEconCom: On Tuesday Martin Lewis, Hannah Morrish & Shakira Martin gave evidence to the Cttee. Read the full transcript here: https?

  • Ta ta for now. Half term's starting, so I'm exchanging my MoneySavingExpert hat for one that says Daddy in big letters. See you in a week.

  • RT @thismorning: Can @MartinSLewis' deals save YOU cash? ???? https://t.co/igbHCwzeiN

  • Follow Martin