Company Directors & CSA

Soubrette

Dancing_Shoes wrote: »

I think it is wrong to live off the nrpp to play the system. Fair enough if they have lost their job or something but then surely you would sign on?
I agree that the CSA being as powerful as they are should be able to access dvla records, land registry etc. Not that I think the pwc should be told but the csa could then see what you owned and if it was inconsistent they could make an assessment which would be harsher than what they should be assessed at for lying;)

When I say fair enough, I hope no one thinks I mean fair play or anything Fair enough in that you are not defrauding the system (although you might arguably be playing it) the child maintenance system is based on earnings and if you have none then you will have a nil assessment.

The NRPP should be part of the Tribunal system only if the NRP has declared him or her to be. If the NRP says someone else provides the money that they live off of, be they the NRPP, great aunt mabel or a lottery win, the NRP should be asked to offer up proof of that.

No, they don't dish out any of the PWC's info because it is not their income being assessed.

Sou

Blonde_Bint

Originally Posted by Soubrette
If he does live off her earning then fair enough - I have a friend who's ex husband is a house husband and pays not one penny to his three children, there's not a thing the PWC can do about it. That is not acceptable -that is playing the system:mad:


what if the NRPP earns loads more and it is finanically sensible for her to work and for him to become the house husband for a while when the kids need it? Lots of women are SAHM because it makes sense and gives you a better quality of life.

with ref to your friend's ex Sou heres a thought what if her ex is a stay at home husband BUT he is doing work that he gets paid for over the internet I believe if the income is low enough it could be untraceable, he could be doing that. Its a thought no, and it would make sense too cos how many blokes do you know can take kids 8 hrs a day with nothing else to occupy their mind:D though for arguments sake lets say he has a 'thing' on the internet and it earns him say 600 quid a month how you would go about finding out/prove any of this I dont know. (got to admit that would be sneaky though wouldnt it)

Dancing_Shoes

Ah, so if they say that they are living with an nrpp who doesn't "provide" for them but they don't work what then?

I get so into these CSA cases....very geeky and love the ins and outs of it all:o

Dancing_Shoes

Blonde_Bint wrote: »

Originally Posted by Soubrette
If he does live off her earning then fair enough - I have a friend who's ex husband is a house husband and pays not one penny to his three children, there's not a thing the PWC can do about it. That is not acceptable -that is playing the system:mad:


what if the NRPP earns loads more and it is finanically sensible for her to work and for him to become the house husband for a while when the kids need it? Lots of women are SAHM because it makes sense and gives you a better quality of life.

with ref to your friend's ex Sou heres a thought what if her ex is a stay at home husband BUT he is doing work that he gets paid for over the internet I believe if the income is low enough it could be untraceable, he could be doing that. Its a thought no, and it would make sense too cos how many blokes do you know can take kids 8 hrs a day with nothing else to occupy their mind:D though for arguments sake lets say he has a 'thing' on the internet and it earns him say 600 quid a month how you would go about finding out/prove any of this I dont know. (got to admit that would be sneaky though wouldnt it)

Blondie I hope you're not getting any ideas about your hubby staying at home with a pc business;):rotfl::rotfl:

You know I am only messing;)

Soubrette

Dancing_Shoes wrote: »

Ah, so if they say that they are living with an nrpp who doesn't "provide" for them but they don't work what then?

I get so into these CSA cases....very geeky and love the ins and outs of it all:o

That would be fine - but they would have to explain who or what is funding their lifestyle. No one can live off of thin air, except perhaps these guys http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breatharian

Sou

Dancing_Shoes

Soubrette wrote: »

That would be fine - but they would have to explain who or what is funding their lifestyle. No one can live off of thin air, except perhaps these guys http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breatharian

Sou

What if they had "pocket money" from their nrpp?
Does the nrpp's salary then become the assessable income or the "pocket money"

Regardless of disclosure i.e the nrpp has disclosed that she earns 50k per annum, if the nrp lives off her salary because he is a house husband is there anything that can be done?

Blonde_Bint

idea only popped into my head because... (gotta love my train of thought) oh's father is retired and bored so dh suggested he do something part time, so he does a very small 'business' which you couldnt live off if you had to pay a mortgage bills etc but just tops up the pension nicely gives him I dont know guessing here couple hundred quid a month give or take. just enough to make it worth doing iyswim.

see where I drew the parrallel from though. what if the nrp is doing something similar but earning more money at it iyswim. I hasten to add he only might be doing this, he may not be doing anything. but you could have an internet business and be under all radar, actually i'm only guessing you can run an internet business and hide it based on no knowledge whatsoever. I would be interested just for wonderings sake if anyone has more knowledge on this subject?

Soubrette

Dancing_Shoes wrote: »

What if they had "pocket money" from their nrpp?
Does the nrpp's salary then become the assessable income or the "pocket money"

Regardless of disclosure i.e the nrpp has disclosed that she earns 50k per annum, if the nrp lives off her salary because he is a house husband is there anything that can be done?

No nothing can be done, once it is proved that the NRP is being given money by someone then he is deemed to have no income and will have a nil assessment.

If the NRPP earned a million a year - it is not their responsibility to support their partner's children, if they want to then that is very generous of them.

The CSA base their calculations on the NRP's income - not gifts, although gifts that earn interest might be taken into the calculation if over a certain amount.

Sou

Dancing_Shoes

Soubrette wrote: »

No nothing can be done, once it is proved that the NRP is being given money by someone then he is deemed to have no income and will have a nil assessment.

If the NRPP earned a million a year - it is not their responsibility to support their partner's children, if they want to then that is very generous of them.

The CSA base their calculations on the NRP's income - not gifts, although gifts that earn interest might be taken into the calculation if over a certain amount.

Sou

So how is this different o if the nrpp wins the lottery? If it is her/his name on the ticket, the funds are paid into an account in their sole name only

Soubrette

Dancing_Shoes wrote: »

So how is this different o if the nrpp wins the lottery? If it is her/his name on the ticket, the funds are paid into an account in their sole name only

It isn't different - if the NRPP wins the lottery (presuming it can easily be proved that it was the partner and not the NRP who purchased the ticket) then it's their money to do with what they want.

If the NRP wins the lottery then child maintenance is only payable on the interest gained - not the capital gain.

As far as I'm aware the PWC will not get any lump sum in either scenario, unless you know differently?

Sou