Income increase of £225, IPA increase of £374!!

Rosey321

Hi all

My wife has recently gone full time and her net pay has increased by £289 per month.
We wrote and told the OR and had to fill in a new IPOQ. As well as the wage increase, we increased our outgoings by about £60 due to increased energy bills, extra clothing as our daughter has started school, water rates up by a tenner compared to initial IPOQ form .
All in all, we were declaring an increased income of around £225 p/m

Today, we received our amended IPA figures through the post: my own IPA has risen by £98 (presumably through added household income) and my wife's IPA has risen by £276! Therefore, through declaring an increase in income of £225, we have got combined IPA increases of an extra £374 in total on top of our previous figures!

I was expecting that based on an increase of £225 p/m, they might have grabbed about 2/3rds of that sum (around £150) and split that sum between us (ie another £75 each). Our IPA amounts have previously been the same even though my wife earns 50% more than I do so I think they have always worked our sums out collectively in the past and split the end result in half.

However, the original sum was worked out by the main OR office and the new figures have been worked out by the RTLU who we transferred to a couple of weeks back. I had thought that going to the RTLU was a good sign although I was worried if there would be a lack of continuity which indeed does seem to be the case here. It's a shame the increase didn't happen before the transfer and maybe it would have been worked out by the same person then.
I have a horrible feeling that they have obviously worked it all out using different criteria.
As it stands, my wife's decision to up her working hours has backfired which is a shame because although she knew she wouldn't see much of her increase after IPA deductions, she wanted to do the right thing by going back full time. Now it seems she is paying the price and her much increased workload is going to leave us more out of pocket!

We will of course ask for an explanation. My question after all this waffling is: does the OR take kindly to questioning and contesting the figures given or are we expected to swallow the decision? I am tempted to get in touch with the original OR for her opinion but then I also don't want to be seen to be treading on the RTLU's toes! Any general ideas?

So_Sad_Angel

HI,

Can`t help I`m afraid but do question their rationale...that seems to be no incentive for your wife to work more hours.

Perhaps tell them its too much & she is considering not accepting the increased hours & see what they say then.

Do challenge....this process is a 2 way street & you have the right always to question decisions that effect your standard of living.

Angexx

dalip

Hi Everybody's situ is different but i had to fill in about 5 IOQ's,,3 of those for the OR and 2 for the ED clerk. I was transferred to the RTLU in jan of this year and when i changed my job in march had to fill out a new IPOQ,the first of the 3 for the OR. All my original figures where agreed every time,so am at a loss as to how they can suddenly change their minds. That said they seem to be a law unto them selves:rolleyes: .Ask for a breakdown on how they got to those figures for both of you

In regards to querying something i did recently and,like you, was scared i would get their backs up,as it was it paid off for me. So i would say ask away.You have nothing to loose and everything to gain

I would firstly go to who you are with now,then if no joy,ask the opinion of your original OR.

Might help if you post your i&e up here and we could then tell you where a mistake/cutback may have been made either before or now.

Do lets us know what happens,if the worst comes to the worst,cut your hours back down.Dx

fiveyearplan

Seeing as its an IPA then you do need to be in agreement with how it was worked out. They should really give a breakdown as a matter of course so you know what you're signing. I think you have no choice but question it.

Stand your ground - we have seen some OR decision reversal on here, just think that money is taking food out of your family's mouths!

LilyBart

No advice to give. Just wanted to say "Ouch!" and extend my sympathies. Have you worked out what your budget would be if you did pay the extra amount? If it's seriously depleted - and it sounds as though it must be - then that might be the best way to illustrate that this revision is unnecessarily punitive and impractical.

blind-as-a-bat_2

There is no way that is correct, do you recieve child benefit, that may not have been disregarded

as the others say you need a detailed break down of what they have allowed this time, and a detailed breakdown of what they allowed on the first pair of I&E,s to compare it with.

And it is wholly reasonable that you increased this one to reflect fuel, gas, electric and food price increases.

Remember each of you is assesed for an IPA seperatly, which does tend to cloud the issue, so things like who actually gets paid things like WTC and CTC is important as that should be classed as that persons income, not the other, or split between the two but i have seen it being applied to both in full once by mistake.

In simple terms they should not have taken any more than about 60% of the increase, although i can see how that would effect the others surplus, but not enough to warrent that increase

fermi

You definitely need a breakdown of their calculations before and after the changes. As said, no way that is correct assuming that there wasn't originally a big mistake in the amounts.

Although the IPA is now in place, remember that to enforce it against your will the OR/trustee would still have to do this through the courts. They would make them explain their calculations.

LilyBart

Rosey,
They may yet back down from this if you ask for their breakdown and compile your own post-increase budget. If they're being unfair and you don't co-operate with the revisions, it's not an IPA, it's an IPO and must go before a judge. [cue Bat with the relevant quote]
L x

EDIT: crossed with Fermi, who means "assuming" not "amusing"?

fermi

LilyBart wrote: »

EDIT: crossed with Fermi, who means "assuming" not "amusing"?

Yep.

IPA or IPO is the same really. IPAs were introduced so that they could be agreed without a court order.

But once in place they can be enforced or varied in exactly then same way as an IPO. In other words, by agreement between the two parties or without agreement by an order of the court. So if you don't agree with a variation in an IPA or IPO the OR/trustee must go through the courts if they want to impose it without your agreement.

EDIT: As you can imagine, if their calculations are a bit "suspect" they are not normally very keen on doing that.

LilyBart

Really? Cool! Had always assumed the A changed to O upon being put through the courts. Good to know that isn't necessarily the case.

Rosey321

Thanks all for responses - I've been away visiting family for a couple of days so haven't been on.

Yes, it was a big shock to open the envelopes and see our new combined IPA amounts being revalued to over a thousand a month (excluding the nil tax element) - ouch indeed!!

Our initial IPA figures were very fair so one theory is that the original OR allowed certain things like holiday (£80) and broadband (£15) and maybe the new section have disallowed some things. However, I've always justified each amount, for instance broadband is essential for my wife's work. I was asked for proof of the gas and leccy increase which I was able to supply. We was even upfront enough to declare that my wife has received a prescription exemption card therefore our monthly 'prescription' section should decrease.

When I sent the IPOQ, we was asked for copies of our payslips. My other possible theory is that the RTLU have taken the net pay figure off of the payslip as the income and haven't accounted for the nil tax code. On the IPOQ, we stated our net pay as being the actual money we receive each month minus NT IPA. Maybe this has not been taken into account?

I have prepared another detailed spreadsheet basically listing only the elements that have changed which details that the income has only gone up by £225. I have detailed before and after IPA figures and have basically highlighted that the previous amounts were agreed and therefore my belief is that the figures should only go up by a percentage of the increase.

I'm going to post it tomorrow as it is one of those things thats better explained on paper with figures than over the phone. I had built up a pretty good relationship with the old office but haven't spoken to the new one yet either!! (Maybe i'll ring later in the week to break the ice a little....)

Yes, I have some hope that the figure may be reduced. It must work in our favour that the original amounts were agreed and I can then go from the angle that the IPA should only increase in accordance with percentages of future increases. Otherwise, indeed, what's the incentive of full time work, aiming for promotion etc....?