CSA - Ex Making A Claim Against Me Now

Deepest_Blue_2

Hi Lizzie,

Thanks a lot for your post.

Unfortunately, I wished it was easy to just pick up the phone and ask her what her intentions are, but we are not on speaking terms so it's not really possible. I sincerely believe that all this has stemmed from the fact that she's had a further two children since she remarried and thus really struggling financially. She heard that I was doing quite a bit of overtime (in the past as now I have totally stopped it since I heard she went to the CSA), and of course she probably thought she would try her luck and break our agreement (in which I have in writing that she was happy with), in the hope that she can grab as much money off me as she can. I said to her that it was a very irrational thing to do because now it could screw us both over, me in terms of now not being able to do overtime and her probably not really getting much more money out of me if at all, or maybe even less than what I am paying her. I said to her that if she wanted more money out of me then she just had to ask and if it was a reasonable amount extra I would have agreed to it as long as I was allowed to continue doing overtime, but now, I can't do overtime and she's still waiting for her claim, so therefore we are both losing out, she could have been getting, say £50 or £100 more off me if she thought about this logically and not always shooting from the lip or being emotionally reactive towards everything. She has been unreasonable because as I said she has been getting a stable and secure payment of a considerable amount for the last 4 years in which she was very happy with - when she just had the 4 children to look out for, but now she has 6 in which 2 of them with her new partner, this is what it's all been about but of course she has been dressing it up to look like i've been totally unreasonable. I have it all in writing and I've posted here that she said she's been happy with the arrangements.

Maybe it is as you say and that she's attempted to claim more now because she's found hardship after having two more children, 6 kids is quite a lot to pay out for, so my question is WHY do I have to pay for those two kids as well? It's totally wrong. Even if she has attempted to claim more benefits, it looks as though she has certainly declared the money I have been giving her otherwise she would have already been getting the housing benefit (or any other benefit), she's already said in one of her emails that the reason why she wasn't getting that benefit was because of the money I was paying her, so that means the benefit agencies must know about the money coming in from me.

Housing Benefits is based on household income, however from October 2008 child maintenance is not counted as income. For pre October it could be that the council were being funny over the amount (as in TC above).

This is interesting and I really don't know why the CAB were not helpful towards me when I went to see them about this issue, the didn't give me any advice other than continue to pay her and wait for the CSA to get hold of me. It seems as though that I should stop the payments in order to speed things up and thus also protecting myself as I would have witheld the money. I am really thinking about doing this now.

marksoton

Deepest_Blue wrote: »

Hi Lizzie,

Thanks a lot for your post.

Unfortunately, I wished it was easy to just pick up the phone and ask her what her intentions are, but we are not on speaking terms so it's not really possible. I sincerely believe that all this has stemmed from the fact that she's had a further two children since she remarried and thus really struggling financially. She heard that I was doing quite a bit of overtime (in the past as now I have totally stopped it since I heard she went to the CSA), and of course she probably thought she would try her luck and break our agreement (in which I have in writing that she was happy with), in the hope that she can grab as much money off me as she can. I said to her that it was a very irrational thing to do because now it could screw us both over, me in terms of now not being able to do overtime and her probably not really getting much more money out of me if at all, or maybe even less than what I am paying her. I said to her that if she wanted more money out of me then she just had to ask and if it was a reasonable amount extra I would have agreed to it as long as I was allowed to continue doing overtime, but now, I can't do overtime and she's still waiting for her claim, so therefore we are both losing out, she could have been getting, say £50 or £100 more off me if she thought about this logically and not always shooting from the lip or being emotionally reactive towards everything. She has been unreasonable because as I said she has been getting a stable and secure payment of a considerable amount for the last 4 years in which she was very happy with - when she just had the 4 children to look out for, but now she has 6 in which 2 of them with her new partner, this is what it's all been about but of course she has been dressing it up to look like i've been totally unreasonable. I have it all in writing and I've posted here that she said she's been happy with the arrangements.

Maybe it is as you say and that she's attempted to claim more now because she's found hardship after having two more children, 6 kids is quite a lot to pay out for, so my question is WHY do I have to pay for those two kids as well? It's totally wrong. Even if she has attempted to claim more benefits, it looks as though she has certainly declared the money I have been giving her otherwise she would have already been getting the housing benefit (or any other benefit), she's already said in one of her emails that the reason why she wasn't getting that benefit was because of the money I was paying her, so that means the benefit agencies must know about the money coming in from me.



This is interesting and I really don't know why the CAB were not helpful towards me when I went to see them about this issue, the didn't give me any advice other than continue to pay her and wait for the CSA to get hold of me. It seems as though that I should stop the payments in order to speed things up and thus also protecting myself as I would have witheld the money. I am really thinking about doing this now.

You are over complicating this ! Get on the blower and find out if a claim is in. Don't worry about retrospective things at the minute. Until you get confirmation either way you will not know the best route to take.

CAB will not give you expert advice, their resources are limited and the number of subjects they are required to advise on are extensive. They target funding at areas that are pertinent to the demographic they serve. They do a brilliant job but are limited.

For the sake of 1 phone call all your angst should be sorted one way or the other.

Deepest_Blue_2

marksoton wrote: »

For the sake of 1 phone call all your angst should be sorted one way or the other.

I will call them. I am working nights this week so I will try to get a call in tomorrow, I would try tonight but maybe it's too late?

chall1964

To the OP,

Payment by SO has been a discussion on many forums (not just the one I am connected with).
Current CSA staff have stated that, payments by SO should be marked 'child support' OR 'child maintenance'.
Indeed, NACSA also make this statement on their website also.

Follow the link
http://www.cmoptions.org/en/pdfs/CMO_Getting_Started.pdf - pg 8 states;

How to make or receive payments
There are 3 main ways of making and receiving the payments: standing order, cheque or cash. A standing order is the best way to ensure the payments are made in full and on time and are recorded on paper.

kelloggs36 wrote: »

No that is not true because the PWC has no say in how the NRP sets up their standing order do they? Anybody could put that as a reference whether it be true or not. What I am saying is that if a PWC denies that the money was for maintenance, then there could be a dispute which needs an appeal to sort out - which could take months, meanwhile the PWC's word is accepted as fact and the NRP is being chased for 'arrears'. I do not want the NRP in this case to get stung in this way - he has to cover all bases.

Kelloggs, I have already stated - that although the recipient is unable control how a SO is set up - they are indeed able to reject the funds from such if they are dissatisfied!!!

Deepest_Blue_2

chall1964 wrote: »

To the OP,

Payment by SO has been a discussion on many forums (not just the one I am connected with).
Current CSA staff have stated that, payments by SO should be marked 'child support' OR 'child maintenance'.
Indeed, NACSA also make this statement on their website also.

Follow the link
http://www.cmoptions.org/en/pdfs/CMO_Getting_Started.pdf - pg 8 states;

How to make or receive payments
There are 3 main ways of making and receiving the payments: standing order, cheque or cash. A standing order is the best way to ensure the payments are made in full and on time and are recorded on paper.

Thanks for that, it's very helpful, however, does this apply only after you reach an agreement with the CSA or also before when the CSA were not even involved or raised a case yet? Even so, all my bank statements say "Child Maintenance" anyway so I still believe I am covered as well as what appears to be her declaration to the CSA that she had already been getting money off me because as she said the CSA wanted to know if I was going to stop payments or not, something she had to tell them immediately.

I really do think I am covered, I just have to be because the evidence I have is just too overwhelming for her to all of a sudden deny or deviate from what's there in front of everybody, it just would be absolutely incredible and completely criminal of the CSA or anybody else to reject what's there in black and white, it therefore would just seem like a deliberate ploy to try and get money off me that they were never entitled too using their "power" and abusing it.

LizzieS_2

Deepest_Blue wrote: »

Thanks for that, it's very helpful, however, does this apply only after you reach an agreement with the CSA or also before when the CSA were not even involved or raised a case yet? Even so, all my bank statements say "Child Maintenance" anyway so I still believe I am covered as well as what appears to be her declaration to the CSA that she had already been getting money off me because as she said the CSA wanted to know if I was going to stop payments or not, something she had to tell them immediately.

I really do think I am covered, I just have to be because the evidence I have is just too overwhelming for her to all of a sudden deny or deviate from what's there in front of everybody, it just would be absolutely incredible and completely criminal of the CSA or anybody else to reject what's there in black and white, it therefore would just seem like a deliberate ploy to try and get money off me that they were never entitled too using their "power" and abusing it.

The linky relates to new cases following that path, it also suggests you should make a written agreement before commencing payments.

Kellogs is a former employee and does know how the csa deal with disputes and the time it takes to prove which parent is right.

If you cannot phone ex, perhaps email asking if she would explain why she doesn't trust you and wishes to use the csa?

Deepest_Blue_2

Oh Lizzie , Honestly I would love nothing more than this to be sorted out amicably, but she isn't talking to me any longer and she's aparently blocked my email address, I have tried to email her only last week and to no avail. I don't know the real truth as to why she's had to go to the CSA other than trying to get more money because of her financial situation changing due to her having more children. It's not a question of trust because for 4 years now I have paid her the same amount without fail so there was no question of the money stopping at all, there was no risk of that. It's just come down to her wanting more money, or maybe someone has told her that she can get more money by going to the CSA simply because she heard that I was doing a lot of overtime earlier this year.

I will call the CSA helpline to make an enquiry but I need to find a free moment, I work my last night shift tomorrow so hopefully I can do it then.

I just want a little bit of assurance that I am protected especially based on the information I have given. It does appear that she has declared the money otherwise she wouldn't have said she wouldn't of got housing benefit because that's what she's aparently been using the money for.

marksoton

Deepest_Blue wrote: »

I will call the CSA helpline to make an enquiry but I need to find a free moment, I work my last night shift tomorrow so hopefully I can do it then.

Which quite frankly should have been your first move. Until you do this all advice is speculative.

Deepest_Blue_2

Just dug out another email from her when the agreement was set up between us back in late 2005

"Hi, would you be willing to pay child support in the amount of £nnn.nn a month, £nnn.nn of that being the normal monthy rate, £nnn.nn to cover the back date from July (2005)."

So really, to me, In the statement above, she's clearly saying that the money I have been giving her from that point was for child support and it was at this point when I first started the Standing Order. Infact, I've only just realised i've probably given her more than I should because I've never adjusted the money back to what it should have been and always kept it at the same amount.

I've printed it off along with the one that said she was happy with the agreement and attaching it with my bank statements for when I need to use them.

Deepest_Blue_2

kelloggs36 wrote: »

What I am saying is that if a PWC denies that the money was for maintenance, then there could be a dispute which needs an appeal to sort out - meanwhile the PWC's word is accepted as fact and the NRP is being chased for 'arrears'.

I keep reading and re-reading this statement. If the CSA had any sort of credibility then a "word of mouth" isn't factual enough to base someone's payments on and that bank statements proving she was getting an income is factual! Anybody and everybody would be saying that surely and get away with it ! It makes absolutely no sense.

I have spoken to someone who also knows a little about the law and they said I am OK, this is what I was told as I am no expert in claiming benefits because i've never claimed them, however, I would have expected that in whatever benefits she claimed she would have had to provide proof of any monies that she'd be getting or not getting, and as I was paying her money directly into her bank account, this is proof of "money coming in" which then doesn't really matter what it's for - it could be either income from a job or even a gift from someone, the fact is she was getting money and this should off-set against what she was claiming, so then eventually the benefits came to the conclusion that she couldn't claim housing benefits due that money I was paying. It's the same as having a salary, it don't matter where it's coming from or for what purpose, the fact is that she IS getting it and it being paid into her bank account means so had no option than to declare it - or face being investigated. If I was paying her cash in hand or any other other untraceable method, then thats when it would be her word against mine, rendering me totally screwed basically.

All I have to prove is that I was giving her the money, and if she then lied about it and claimed more than she should, she will be in deep trouble because her claim would be fraudulent and then liable to pay it all back because I would have proven that she received an income of some sort during the period of her claim, and adding to that, the fact that she accepted money coming into her account titled "child maintenance" on our bank statements is already an automatic agreement (backed up by her email I posted earlier) that she was using it for this purpose. I can't see how she can get out of it really, I honestly don't.

But anyway, for her to say that she was refused housing benefit due to the money I was giving her must surely indicate that she's declared it.