Desperate for help...

Damzel_In_Distress

well im sorry if this sounds harsh,and maybe she is taking it a bit to far,but she was his WIFE for TEN years! ..you have only what..been his girlfriend for a few months??...you shouldnt even be gettin involved considering the short time youve been in this relationship,its really non of your buisness.
sure his wife might have done some things wrong,but at the end of the day youve been with guy for basically peanuts ammount of time and your involving yourself in what was THEIR marriage.

frustrated1983

Damzel_In_Distress wrote: »

well im sorry if this sounds harsh,and maybe she is taking it a bit to far,but she was his WIFE for TEN years! ..you have only what..been his girlfriend for a few months??...you shouldnt even be gettin involved considering the short time youve been in this relationship,its really non of your buisness.
sure his wife might have done some things wrong,but at the end of the day youve been with guy for basically peanuts ammount of time and your involving yourself in what was THEIR marriage.

Damzel in Distress I'm sorry if this sounds harsh back at you but my god..it is a common misconception that all single mothers are scroungers and out for what they can get and I apologise to all the genuine members of this board, I know this is a small percentage of women -but you Damzel fuel this assumption with your response. She is absolved of all resonsibility for obtaining money by deception (which is a criminal offence!) simply because she was his wife for ten years! I tell ya what, we'll just pay this and I'll come back in ten years maybe then you can tell me I've earned the qualifications to defend him. I do live with him and we have joint finances so this does in fact affect me direct and I know I will be with him for the rest of my life so excuse me but I will fight this. This is just the tip of the iceberg to what he's paying out for the marriage, she has no other debts, and I do not get involved with any of them because at the end of the day they both accumulated those debts, with her refusing to work he is the only one paying and so he should take responsibility, he helped create them,.but this I do not agree with, this is sheer greed, she didn't warn him when she knew the application was going through. Actually I don't know why I'm going through all this, your response actually just passes judgement, which I did not request, your response does not have anything to do with the situation, you refer direct to my nerve for getting involved, I love this man and I refuse to see him destitute!

marksoton

Damzel_In_Distress wrote: »

well im sorry if this sounds harsh,and maybe she is taking it a bit to far,but she was his WIFE for TEN years! ..you have only what..been his girlfriend for a few months??...you shouldnt even be gettin involved considering the short time youve been in this relationship,its really non of your buisness.
sure his wife might have done some things wrong,but at the end of the day youve been with guy for basically peanuts ammount of time and your involving yourself in what was THEIR marriage.

I missed this post. What a bigoted one it is too. Do you actually have any idea how the CSA work ?

I certainly hope not and can only assume you posted out of ignorance. Based on the OP's information it is said wife who should hang her head in shame.

LizzieS_2

frustrated1983 wrote: »

well update to this guys..apparantely the CSA aren't in the wrong, after a strongly worded letter was sent to thim, my partner called them and got a bit more help than last time. He was told his ex had been in receipt of income support for 3 years back in 2002, they gave him dates, amounts everything. So he's disputing this and has told them he can prove via wage slips, bank statements, council tax bills, mortgage payments etc that he was resident. He doesn't want to completely ruin her but we feel it to be extremely unfair that he will be responsible for £11,000 that he knew nothing about (he worked away at the time) whilst he was legitamately busting a gut to provide for his kids whilst his ex refused to even get a part time job. Not to mention all the other bills she has forwarded to him even though they are in joint names and he is willing to go halfs(he has been told it would take too long to recover the money from her from her benefits) All in all it totals £1000 before he can even think about rent, food, current bills. Now she wants maintenance for herself so she doesn't have to get a job!

Whichever way I look at this, he's in a mess. He can report her for benefit fraud and eventually will recover the csa 11K that way. However, there is a huge problem - having only been separated for 5 months it is unlikely the divorce and financial assessment have been rubber stamped by the courts (even if they had, the new information could possibly allow re-examination). If he can prove the ex still has the money it isn't a major problem, if not, it is a problem. In the eyes of the court for financial settlements, the 11K was paid into the marriage and if it cannot be proven that she still has it, technically it has been spent on the marriage - this gives the court the discretion to decide who must repay it (although for criminal proceedings it would be only her prosecuted).

frustrated1983

Thanks for the reply Lizzie - you put a new spin on it, I hadn't thought about it that way. Well she definitely has not got the money so thats a non starter but with regards to the financial arrangements she is insisting on a 50/50 split - in her words she has told him the 50/50 split purely relates to his pension and his earnings and he can keep all of the debts (despite being in joint names) don't think she realises 50/50 is 50% debts, 50% assets (though besides the pension there is none) so maybe even this solution would not be a bad thing, I think he would be quite happy to take half of the bill for being so stupid not to notice she did it. It would simply be totally unjustified for him to foot the whole bill for something he knew nothing about.

Zeldazog

I think your partner needs to get along to the CAB, or a solicitor as soon as possible, if she has deliberately committed fraud by claiming income support, he needs to get legal advice to protect himself.

LizzieS_2

Agree, it's 50% of debts and assets.

Just to clarify one point, courts can only amend shares in property and/or award maintenance. Courts cannot directly alter the names of personal/joint debts - they use the 2 means mentioned to get round it (eg if partner took majority of debt, he should also have majority of equity).

Agree with Zeldazog - he needs proper legal advice to protect his own interests. As he's working, he will probably have to pay after a free 30 minute session. One thing to bear in mind, if she is on benefits she may get free legal aid - don't argue over an amount that even if he goes for a full hearing and wins, he will have spent more getting it (legal aid cannot pick up the other parties costs even when the other party wins).

Damzel_In_Distress

frustrated1983 wrote: »

Damzel in Distress I'm sorry if this sounds harsh back at you but my god..it is a common misconception that all single mothers are scroungers and out for what they can get and I apologise to all the genuine members of this board, I know this is a small percentage of women -but you Damzel fuel this assumption with your response. She is absolved of all resonsibility for obtaining money by deception (which is a criminal offence!) simply because she was his wife for ten years! I tell ya what, we'll just pay this and I'll come back in ten years maybe then you can tell me I've earned the qualifications to defend him. I do live with him and we have joint finances so this does in fact affect me direct and I know I will be with him for the rest of my life so excuse me but I will fight this. This is just the tip of the iceberg to what he's paying out for the marriage, she has no other debts, and I do not get involved with any of them because at the end of the day they both accumulated those debts, with her refusing to work he is the only one paying and so he should take responsibility, he helped create them,.but this I do not agree with, this is sheer greed, she didn't warn him when she knew the application was going through. Actually I don't know why I'm going through all this, your response actually just passes judgement, which I did not request, your response does not have anything to do with the situation, you refer direct to my nerve for getting involved, I love this man and I refuse to see him destitute!

so without knowing me you ASSUME im a scrounger??! and for the record i never said his ex wife was right,i said it should be left for the two of them to sort out.or can you not read?..he has children with this woman,and it acutually infuriates me when men with children have new partners and the new partner seems to think they shouldnt pay for the existing children! wouldnt want it to cut into your "lifestyle" after all...pfff!

LizzieS_2

Damzel_In_Distress wrote: »

so without knowing me you ASSUME im a scrounger??! and for the record i never said his ex wife was right,i said it should be left for the two of them to sort out.or can you not read?..he has children with this woman,and it acutually infuriates me when men with children have new partners and the new partner seems to think they shouldnt pay for the existing children! wouldnt want it to cut into your "lifestyle" after all...pfff!

There are a lot of new partners who do like the past children to be put last, but this OP is not one of them. Read the posts - nothing even remotely suggests that the OP is interferring with payments of legimate child support.

frustrated1983

Thanks Lizzie, it seems some people like to jump in without knowing all the facts first. I have no problem whatsoever with my partner supporting his children and I have no problem with putting my hand in my pocket myself (which I have done), my partners kids do not go without on his side, he would see himself skint before they went without.

And Damzel in Distress, I did not call you a scrounger, I referred to his ex partner for trying to take him for ever penny. I would not make assumptions on other people if I didn't know them. which you contradict yourself, because this is exactly what you did in your attack.

Regardless of whether I have been with this man 5 months or 5 years, whats happening is unlawful and unfair and I will not be told I am not allowed to get involved purely because of the short time I have been with him, not when I know I will be with this month for life. As I said as well, this directly affects me i.e. he pays this fraudulent bill - he has less money - he can't afford rent - I have to pay more. Therefore, how is this none of my business???

For all of the sensible posters, thanks for your responses, I think this is going to be a bit hairy and legal advice is needed.