Benefits and maintenance??

katie1

Hello all,

I might sound dim but i'm trying to come to an agrement with ex for maintenance payments if and when i get any do i have to contact DWP because i get Income Suppost at the moment? how does it work will i still get IS ?

What is a reasonably amount my ex should pay towards our children (2) weekly i have no idea what his wages are .

tinkerbell84

Yes you do have to tell DWP and probably do it through the CSA

You won't get all of it either - i think you can have a tenner a week on top of your IS.

katie1

Is that all:eek: so if my ex paid me more that IS (£60.50 weekly)i'd really have it took off me ? How does that benifit the children ?? I want extra cash for them not just replace my benefit. If my ex knows his money just replaces my benefit he wont give me any. .He will say " its not for you " thats just what he's like . I don't know what to do now . I opted out off CSA when we first split due to Domesic Violence i was scared to claim and the adviser agreed .

tinkerbell84

I think the point is that your ex can afford to pay for his children so the state shouldn't have to.

say you spend 2/3rds of your IS on your kids - 40 quid a week. that's what it costs to feed, clothe etc. if your ex gives you 30 quid a week, you don't need all of the IS as well.

so your ex pays the 30 quid to the csa, who pass it to DWP and you get a bit more every week.

IS takes into account how many children you have etc, so it is fair, really.

if your ex was giving you a grand a week you wouldn't expect the IS as well.

tinkerbell84

here you go:

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/BenefitsTaxCreditsAndOtherSupport/Expectingorbringingupchildren/DG_10018838

Elle00

Yes this is correct.

If you want any extra cash you can work to earn up to £20 a week as well as getting the £10 child maintenance premium without it affecting your benefits. So potentially you can get £30 a week extra cash through the right channels.

If you want to keep the maintenance yourself you have to be working 16hrs a week or more and on WTC.

Please don't take the maintenance cash in hand because firstly, it really winds people, who like me do things the right way, totally up. Secondly it's benefit fraud and you could be liable for criminal proceedings. I know you've not suggested you'd consider doing that, I'm just saying it because I know a lot of people who've done it.

kelloggs36

At the moment for existing IS claimants, the rate you can keep is £10 per week but this is due to increase to £20 in October and further increases after that.

Elle00

kelloggs36 wrote: »

At the moment for existing IS claimants, the rate you can keep is £10 per week but this is due to increase to £20 in October and further increases after that.

Seriously now? Are you sure? WOO-HOO!!! Wonder if this will affect the lone parent working disregard though?

kelloggs36

No I don't think it will because it isn't earnings. So potentially by 2010 a PWC could get full income support and child tax credits PLUS all of any maintenance (so if an NRP's assessment was £100 per week they could get that) and £20 per week earnings. As they get income support they would also be getting housing benefit and council tax benefit, and therefore be much better off than a working family. I personally feel that this is not right and should not be encouraged. Whilst I don't begrudge a limited amount of extra money, to ignore all of it is obscene.

Womble8

A parent that stays at home solely taking responsibility for the welfare of their children is doing a very difficult job and, when on benefits, for a pittance! They are not lazy scrounging bums, but unpaid workers. Why then are they the ones to blame rather than the absent parents?
Anyone claiming WTC is not receiving full Housing Benefit.
Parents on Income Support do not even receive Child Benefit even though every rich person in the country with children does! That is to say , Child Benefit is given to them , but then taken off their weekly Income Support. Ridiculous when you think about the reasons it was devised in the first place.
Income Support when bringing up children means extreme poverty, to say that the needs of a family are covered by the amount given is a complete joke. Taking away maintenance money which comes from the absent parent is not encouraging responsibility and not supporting the future generation.
We all get just one childhood and that shapes who we become. Children growing up on benefits deserve to be able to eat as well; but I'm afraid in alot of cases all around the country they are being deprived even of that.

kelloggs36

I agree to a point, but the whole point of income support is to provide a safety net for families so that they can feed themselves and provide shelter. Providing too much money will not encourage people into work and we will find ourselves in an even worse situation than we are now. However, it is not true to suggest that all income support recipients are in poverty - if they rent they often get full rent paid, plus all council tax paid, plus they get money. The more children they have equals more money. Unfotunately for many it means that they have to remain on benefits because the system is skewed in order that many aren't better off working. For example, if a 2 parent of 6 children lived on benefits they would get £426 per week PLUS all their rent and council tax paid. That is so much more than a minimum wage job. Yes they may get some tax credits, but not that much!!!! I wish I had over £400 per week after paying my housing costs.