variance and how to investigate...

mitchaa

Soubrette wrote: »

Actually they could easily prove it - look at his tax returns and at his profit and loss statement (which according to companies house has to be filed with HMRC but as he is a small company is not on public record), if he'd committed fraud then fair enough - nothing to do with the CSA but if he hasn't then this will give the evidence of income that is required.

Sou

Why are you so hell bent on pursuing your ex for cash he doesn't want to pay? What benefit is it doing you or your child?

If he doesn't want to pay, cant you just accept that and be proud that you can raise your child on your own with no financial help from the father?

Apologies if that sounds harsh, but that is what my mum done when my dad left when i was a baby, he took me at weekends, bought me school uniform etc but never paid my mum any maintenance in anyway shape or form.

She is proud to this day that she raised me without direct financial help from my father, and i am too proud of her for coping on her own.

Sorry, but i do see evidence on here (not this thread as the details are sketchy) that some women are out to get every last penny from their ex as they are jealous of their lifestyles and still want a part of it.

I just personally think you are wasting your time, if he doesn't want to pay, and he has a ltd company, i suspect you have no chance.

He can keep his profit in his company, it's his wage your assessment is based on, he lives off his GF whilst he pays himself a low salary from his company. How can you prove that he doesn't live a life of luxury from his GF?

I do agree with you, a father should pay for his child but if he really doesn't want to, then more fool for you for sleeping with someone that posseses such selfish qualities.

Move on, you've got no chance. You will just cause yourself stress.

Loopy_Girl

Buying your uniforms etc (? whatever that means) and taking you for weekends (and presumably feeding you and keeping you warm and doing activities) IS financial help from your father to your mother.

Be under no illusion mitchaa that she was some sort of trooper who managed to pay for your every little need from her own pocket. She didn't. He paid for your school unform which means that she didn't have to - that is direct financial help.

And as for the sleeping with someone comment? what a tunnel vision attitiude you have as usual when it comes to matters of CSA and benefits in general. You can honestly say that every single woman that you have had sex with you have known completely? Inside and out? If you did then you would probably be the only person in this planet.

You have no experience of any CSA matters and yet to like to blunder over here and play the moral high ground every so often and it's just not pleasant to read particulary if the people are new posters and have no idea what kind of person you are. I would implore you to perhaps think before you say things (and I notice it is always aimed at PWC and not NRP) and try to imagine what life can be like for people other than you sitting in your ivory tower.

kelloggs36

I do agree with you, a father should pay for his child but if he really doesn't want to, then more fool for you for sleeping with someone that posseses such selfish qualities.


What utter rubbish!!!!! I think you will find that most people who sleep together do so because they want to and do not think that their partner is an utter b*stard who will turn his back on you/bi*ch who will screw every penny out of you etc etc etc - if we knew in advance that was their intention then the general population would be much smaller. You will find that these things only come out after a break up - a bit late then!!!!!!!

In any case, I would advise anybody against giving up fighting against somebody who doesn't want to pay - so what if they don't want to, they are legally obliged to and should be made to do so - hence the powers given to the CSA to make them do so!!!

As for ltd company, there should be a record of directors' remuneration - would be a good question to ask at a hearing why a partner is paid so much more than another if they are equal partners. The Op can apply for a variation on the grounds of diversion of income - ie deliberately paying oneself less in order to get a low CSA assessment, whilst transferring the money to the other partner who lives in the same household and so the NRP gets the benefit anyway.

Soubrette

Mitchaa - it is not about my lifestyle - it is about the children's lifestyle. They have a very wealthy dad who 'helps' out to the sum of a couple of hundred quid a year. Even with him lying about his income we're quids in - how sad is that

His children are entitled to a certain lifestyle because their dad is a wealthy individual - they should be able to have their hair styled rather than home cuts, quality clothes, spending money on holidays and other benefits because he is their dad and can afford it.

Anything extra would go towards further education or if that is not an option a deposit for a house. Why should his children struggle when they wouldn't if we were still married?

I find his actions reprehensible but I believe that is because he is like you - he assumes that the money is for me.

I wonder if you would feel the same if your mum had played the same silly games as your father and refused to let him see you at all? To me these are the two sides of the same coin, parents who are supposed to be putting their children first but are totally unable to put their own selfishness to one side.

NRP who won't pay, PWC who refuse access - a few have very good reasons but for the most part....utterly selfish parents

BTW my girls dad actually thinks he's a fantastic dad - he sees them for less than 2 days a week on average and one of his children would rather not see him at all and he's chuffed to bits that he's 'outsmarted' me, not one thought for his children and how they will miss out on things :rolleyes:

Sou

Soubrette

kelloggs36 wrote: »

As for ltd company, there should be a record of directors' remuneration - would be a good question to ask at a hearing why a partner is paid so much more than another if they are equal partners. The Op can apply for a variation on the grounds of diversion of income - ie deliberately paying oneself less in order to get a low CSA assessment, whilst transferring the money to the other partner who lives in the same household and so the NRP gets the benefit anyway.

One of the few pieces of information given by companies house is who the shareholders are - and he is the sole shareholder and director, therefore no chance of applying for a variation of grounds on diversion of income.

It seems like he and his partner keep their financial lives very separate.

Sou

Edited to add - he keeps his salary low for tax purposes, low child maintenance payments are just a 'perk', although I'm sure he would lower them on purpose if the tax efficiency hasn't been there in the first place.

kelloggs36

does he pay himself dividends? He

kelloggs36

Sorry about that!!! Does his partner work separately from him or are they in the business together?

Soubrette

Hi Kelloggs

His partner works separately for him and has a normal PAYE job.

He has a family member as the company secretary of the ltd company but that family member holds no shares (I assume he would be paid a nominal wage as it does involve some work).

When the Dad was with me then we both owned shares in the company, both had small salaries and dividends were paid quarterly. There has been no appreciable decline in his lifestyle since we split, if anything the amount he spends on himself has increased.

I'm hoping the balance statement at least shows that money in the company is not growing, neither are assets so it is unlikely that he keeps money in there long term.

Sou

kelloggs36

It may be that he is paying himself dividends then which makes up the difference - this you can ask to be taken into account in a variation.

Soubrette

kelloggs36 wrote: »

It may be that he is paying himself dividends then which makes up the difference - this you can ask to be taken into account in a variation.

I am 100% certain this is the case but all I have is circumstantial evidence - what he did when we were together, the last 4 balance sheets that he's submitted and a list of the payments for current jobs that he can do within a 25 radius.

Also a list of conjectured expenditure - his two cars, 4 bed detached house and numerous holidays but again I have no actual evidence of what he actually spends - his girlfriend could indeed pay for the lot.

Unfortunately the CSA are asking for hard evidence and the only way I can get that is to ask the girls to snoop in their dad's papers and I refuse to do that.

It's whether the balance of probability is enough for a variation or whether only hard evidence will do

Sou