Please define what "Child Maintenance" Covers

Buster1874

You summed her up exactly!

mitchaa

£800pm is a lot of money, i take it you clear over £4000pm then? (£70k+ salary)

If it was me, i would be sticking a healthy amount of that into my pension fund, to reduce the amount payable.

Do you see the kids at all, do they stay over? You get a reduction for that. Do you have any other kids you pay for, or look after? Again you get a discount for that.

Instead of giving her more, i'd personally be looking into ways to give her less. She sounds like she deserves it, fight fire with fire.

A lot of people end up going SE to dodge CSA is the answer to your question, either that or they just refuse to pay, acknowledge they are the parent or simply just go missing and off the radar. Some people even give up work in order not to pay.

pepsicola_2

Kimitatsu wrote: »

She doesnt - in fact if it went through the CSA themselves rather than direct it can take up to 3 weeks to get from the NRP to the PWC! Although you have to pay a set amount weekly, normally the PWC gets one monthly payment, so if she is not happy with weekly payments offer to pay her on a set day every month (and then duck lol!)

Strikes me she is madder than a box of frogs! Either that or is being somewhat of a control freak :rolleyes:

Send her the CSA leaflet outlining your responsibilities, that you have fulfilled your legal obligation and it is only if YOU choose to pay for anything extra that you can, not that you have to.

There are many PWC on here that get no help whatsoever from the NRP so she should be grateful for what she has.

why should she be grateful?

Loopy_Girl

mitchaa wrote: »

£800pm is a lot of money, i take it you clear over £4000pm then? (£70k+ salary)

If it was me, i would be sticking a healthy amount of that into my pension fund, to reduce the amount payable.

Do you see the kids at all, do they stay over? You get a reduction for that. Do you have any other kids you pay for, or look after? Again you get a discount for that.

Instead of giving her more, i'd personally be looking into ways to give her less. She sounds like she deserves it, fight fire with fire.

A lot of people end up going SE to dodge CSA is the answer to your question, either that or they just refuse to pay, acknowledge they are the parent or simply just go missing and off the radar. Some people even give up work in order not to pay.

Good god I cannot believe you have posted that. You go mental on the benefits board about people screwing the system and dole scroungers and you tell someone to put more in the pension to avoid paying child maintenance for their child? That is also called playing the system Mitchaa....better make sure what high horse you are on before you post eh?

mitchaa

Loopy_Girl wrote: »

Good god I cannot believe you have posted that. You go mental on the benefits board about people screwing the system and dole scroungers and you tell someone to put more in the pension to avoid paying child maintenance for their child? That is also called playing the system Mitchaa....better make sure what high horse you are on before you post eh?

Legally there is nothing wrong with looking after himself pension wise. He would be doing absoloute nothing wrong. He would still be paying for his children but not at the extortionate rate he currently does so at. Whats wrong with half that amount? £400 to his ex?

The fact of the matter is, the O.P thinks his ex is abusing his money, he wants to do something about it.......The best way to do something about it is hit her where it hurts, her pocket.

£800pm is a lot of maintenance money and from the sounds of it, it doesn't go directly to the children, instead funding her lavish lifestyle. She and her new partner are good earners, the children would not go without.

Along with the benefit system, another thing that boils my blood is the CSA system and how many mums financially benefit from it. It's supposed to be for the children but we all know this isn't the case:rolleyes: Someone mentioned on an earlier thread an example of how his CSA payments were used to fund the finance on his ex's new BMW:rolleyes:

I have suggested nothing legally wrong or immoral. He obviously provides very well for his children and so he should, but this 1 is to get back at the mother.

She wants more money, so the best answer is, put more in the pension pot and give her less....Fight fire with fire.£800pm is at the high end of the market, im sure his kids cost no-where near this amount to keep, meaning she pockets the rest and uses it to fund her own lifestyle.

The only smug point that keeps me from boiling over is the fact that if a woman relies on CSA money to fund her lifestyle, 1 day it will all come tumbling down on her when the child reaches 18 and employment.

CSA is an unfair system on the father, that is a FACT. They dont care he may have debts/mortgage to pay, its 15/20/25% regardless.

In my own situation, I/we have already discussed what would happen if we ever split up and that would be for me to put his 'keep' money into my sons savings every month so she couldn't touch HIS money. She was the 1 that actually suggested this.

Too many money grabbing women out there, that again is FACT.

Loopy_Girl

And quite right so...why should a mortgage get taken into account? If it did then there would be many a man shackling a huge mortgage round his neck so that less CSA would be paid.

I am on CSA1 and my ex took a huge home improvement loan out 3 years after my daughter was born but that gets taken into account - think that's fair??

The new system - CMEC - will be 12% of a gross amount. This is probably because things like you suggest - whacking a great load into a pension - have been getting done.

Loopy_Girl

mitchaa wrote: »

In my own situation, I/we have already discussed what would happen if we ever split up and that would be for me to put his 'keep' money into my sons savings every month so she couldn't touch HIS money. She was the 1 that actually suggested this.

Too many money grabbing women out there, that again is FACT.

FACT - there are many that are not either...DO NOT tar all women with the same brush.

Fair enough what you and your wife have discussed but some women need the child's money for day to day living. It may be HIS money as you say but that money isn't just for days out and sweeties. To 'keep' a child he needs a roof over his head, heating, clothing, food etc etc and yes, there are some women panning the !!!! out of it (BMW a good example) but some women do use the CSA in the evry day budget which is how it should be. If they get it all obviously.

mitchaa

I agree a father should pay for his child but in todays world the cost of living is so high, that a 15/20/25% deduction of net wages could mean a father leaving his job due to it not being financially viable.

Who then suffers? The father, the mother and his child, and for what??

This is very real.... Me, myself, i know of 2 men who have done just exactly that, im sure there are thousands if not tens of thousands of fathers nationwide who have done exactly the same.

If i had to pay 25% of my wage, i too would have to give up work as i do not have 25% left over after all my monthly deductions. I simply would not be able to put food on the table.

Expenditure like mortgages should definitely be taken into account, especially at the moment where cost of living is through the roof. My mortgage alone is just over 40% of my take home wage.

mitchaa

Loopy_Girl wrote: »

The new system - CMEC - will be 12% of a gross amount. This is probably because things like you suggest - whacking a great load into a pension - have been getting done.

If that is true, there will be an even higher number of fathers fleeing for the hills or going S.E as this will amount to higher monthly deductions.

12% gross is more than 15% net.

Kimitatsu

Legally there is nothing wrong with looking after himself pension wise. He would be doing absoloute nothing wrong.

The fact of the matter is, the O.P thinks his ex is abusing his money, he wants to do something about it.......The best way to do something about it is hit her where it hurts, her pocket.

£800pm is a lot of maintenance money and from the sounds of it, it doesn't go directly to the children, instead funding her lavish lifestyle. She and her new partner are good earners, the children would not go without.

In parts mitcha I agree with you,legally there is nothing to stop him putting a large proportion into his pension, and if their is provision in that pension for his children so much the better because eventually they will benefit too.

However, regardless of the OP's opinion, his ex may not be "abusing his money" remember there are always three versions, his hers and the truth! He can see she has a lifestyle that is above the average but they both work for that and the children benefit from it. I have an ex that refuses to pay more than £2.50 a week per child for just that reason, we are not on the breadline and therefore he doesn't feel that he should have to pay.

What he doesnt see is that we dont go on holiday and we budget really carefully to ensure that his children have the same opportunities as everyone else, and actually I would say that my boys cost well in excess of £100 a week to keep! The extra money that he should be giving us would go to those extras and being able to put money aside for their university education if they chose to do so.

So whilst we all look from the outside some things are not always as they seem, even if in this case I do agree with the OP that she is trying to get more than she should.

Please also bear in mind that there are PWC out here who actually are not money grabbing and putting upon their ex's just for the hell of it, some of us just want to give our children the best start in life