Company Directors & CSA

Dancing_Shoes

Soubrette wrote: »

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

I see. Actually I think that the nrp's children SHOULD get a percentage of his/her win (as they would have done if they had still been a resident parent)

Anyway back to the topic, Once you have gone to the CSA with any evidence you have is it not them up to them to investigate further?

Soubrette

Dancing_Shoes wrote: »

I see. Actually I think that the nrp's children SHOULD get a percentage of his/her win (as they would have done if they had still been a resident parent)

Anyway back to the topic, Once you have gone to the CSA with any evidence you have is it not them up to them to investigate further?

I think the first is about moral obligations - so remember someone posted about their NRP being supported by the NRPP to the tune of £20K a year yet not paying any child maintenance - that's fair enough from the CSA pov but I think it's incredibly mean to the PWC.

To the second point - yes you would think so, after all the CSA have far reaching and draconian powers...they just don't seem to like using them

So say an NRP claims an income of £10K a year and the PWC notices that they live in quite a grand house, have nice cars etc and so tell the CSA. The CSA then ask for proof, so the PWC now has the unsavoury job of doing things like looking up the land registry to show proof of ownership of the house. The CSA could easily have looked up this proof themselves but presumably don't have the man power.

They then go to the NRP who claims the NRPP supports him and all he earns is £10K.

Now you would think the CSA would investigate as both stories contradict themselves - they could look at tax returns etc, all this would be done under data protection so the PWC need only be told that yes, his income is greater than he has declared or no, his income is as declared and his lifestyle is supplemented by someone/something else.

But no, the CSA have two conflicting stories so they appear to go with the story which gives them less work and shifts the case off their desk.

In this example, if the PWC wants to take it further then it's Tribunal Time which means that all facts/defences are disclosed to both parties eg plaintiff and defendant.

Sou

Changed of to to

Soubrette

Blonde_Bint wrote: »

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)

He might do the odd cash in hand job but in general he is quite happy being a househusband and looking after his three step children (all over school age). It has actually causes quite a lot of heart ache for his natural children, not so much the money part although they are more clued up about that the older they get, but the fact that he is willing to put so much time and effort into his second family and yet does hardly anything for his first family.

I suppose the test of whether he is only avoiding child maintenance will be - when he is not liable for any child maintenance, will he suddenly get a job?

Sou

Dancing_Shoes

Soubrette wrote: »

I think the first is about moral obligations - so remember someone posted about their NRP being supported by the NRPP to the tune of £20K a year yet not paying any child maintenance - that's fair enough from the CSA pov but I think it's incredibly mean of the PWC.

To the second point - yes you would think so, after all the CSA have far reaching and draconian powers...they just don't seem to like using them

So say an NRP claims an income of £10K a year and the PWC notices that they live in quite a grand house, have nice cars etc and so tell the CSA. The CSA then ask for proof, so the PWC now has the unsavoury job of doing things like looking up the land registry to show proof of ownership of the house. The CSA could easily have looked up this proof themselves but presumably don't have the man power.

They then go to the NRP who claims the NRPP supports him and all he earns is £10K.

Now you would think the CSA would investigate as both stories contradict themselves - they could look at tax returns etc, all this would be done under data protection so the PWC need only be told that yes, his income is greater than he has declared or no, his income is as declared and his lifestyle is supplemented by someone/something else.

But no, the CSA have two conflicting stories so they appear to go with the story which gives them less work and shifts the case off their desk.

In this example, if the PWC wants to take it further then it's Tribunal Time which means that all facts/defences are disclosed to both parties eg plaintiff and defendant.

Sou

So surely when it gets to that point and the tribunal see that he owns this house, cars etc they will rule against him?

Soubrette

Dancing_Shoes wrote: »

So surely when it gets to that point and the tribunal see that he owns this house, cars etc they will rule against him?

Not if it's funded by something other than his own income.

Sou

Dancing_Shoes

Soubrette wrote: »

He might do the odd cash in hand job but in general he is quite happy being a househusband and looking after his three step children (all over school age). It has actually causes quite a lot of heart ache for his natural children, not so much the money part although they are more clued up about that the older they get, but the fact that he is willing to put so much time and effort into his second family and yet does hardly anything for his first family.

I suppose the test of whether he is only avoiding child maintenance will be - when he is not liable for any child maintenance, will he suddenly get a job?

Sou

Yes, call me a cynic but I bet he "finds" a job then:rolleyes:

Dancing_Shoes

Soubrette wrote: »

Not if it's funded by something other than his own income.

Sou

That is very unfair:mad:
Basically the CSA can punish and do incorrect assessments, deo's threats lo's on people who are employed but the self employed can do as they please and leave the state to raise their children who they HAVE financial responsibilty for:mad::mad:

Soubrette

Dancing_Shoes wrote: »

That is very unfair:mad:
Basically the CSA can punish and do incorrect assessments, deo's threats lo's on people who are employed but the self employed can do as they please and leave the state to raise their children who they HAVE financial responsibilty for:mad::mad:

Pretty much - imo (biased and cynical as it is ) the CSA will do the easiest option and self employed/directors of ltd companies are too much hard work.

However, for people in those categories who are not fraudulent - the Tribunal is a real option as the standard of proof is much higher than that required by the CSA, but if it gets that far - all the NRPs financial info is accessible to the PWC. The only benefit really for the NRP is that the Tribunal can assess child maintenance payments down as well as up.

I'm sure we both agree though, alot of self employed people are keen to make sure they look after their children and deal honestly with their PWC

However, if you don't want to - then it's a heck of a lot easier if you are self employed.

Sou

plimsoll

Dancing_Shoes wrote: »

Then quite simply he is a 5cum8ag!!:mad:

I would search on google there is a webpage that you can find out for free who is the registered owner of an address (brain is blank at moment:rolleyes:). Then print that out for your file. I think it would matter not being the registered keeper of a car you are insured on if they are using 2 different addresses? (ring dvla for confirmation on that)
Nothing else springs to mind at the moment but if you post anything else he does to avoid payment then i'm sure between alot of the posters on here we could come up with some ideas to catch him out?

Re: insurance/not registered keeper - not a problem at all with DVLA. I have my dad's car, he is still registered keeper (my mum says in case any bailiffs ever come after me they can't take "my" car cos it's not mine ) but I am main insured driver, both parents as named drivers. We live about 250miles from each other...

don't know whether at tribunal you could bring up that his mum couldn't afford the car or not?

LizzieS_2

karenx wrote: »

He has insured it as he is the main driver Im sure. As he did have an accident in his last car and got it repaired. I dont think it matters if you are the registered keeper or not. Insurance does ask you if you are the owner on the V5 or not. I dont know much about that side, all I know is he isnt on the V5, and as he is sneaky in everything he does as he knows how to "work the system" as you would call it so he doesnt have to give me a penny.

This is were 2 laws give separate answers. Registered keeper is the owner - if he puts his mums name on it then legally she has the right to sell (of course he would trust her not to). Insurance is based on the main driver (which does not have to be the registered keeper).

Yes he is playing the system, but I agree with you that he is probably covered from insurance and good faith of his mum.