Car Allowance under CSA 1 Scheme

joanneg_2

Thanks to you both ..... how daft is that! I spoke to them today and they said just send in the MATB1 form and thats fine ..... but I honestly doubt that the re-assessment would be completed within the next 6 weeks anyway.

In the meantime we get abusive texts from the pwc's boyfriend as they think we're not responding!

joanneg_2

Thanks to you both ..... how daft is that! I spoke to them today and they said just send in the MATB1 form and thats fine ..... but I honestly doubt that the re-assessment would be completed within the next 6 weeks anyway.

In the meantime we get abusive texts from the pwc's boyfriend as they think we're not responding!

joanneg_2

Back again ....

Have just looked into this a bit more...

If they are re-assessing from the 23/02/09 and the baby doesn't arrive to the middle of April he would only receive personal allowance for our 3yr old until the baby comes which would mean a maintenance figure of about £330 per month.

Once the baby arrives the payments would reduced by about £200 per month so if they are still assessing the claim at this time how do they calculate his maintenance ..... on the details originally supplied now or do they start a new assessment in 6 weeks? And would he still be liable for the higher maintenance figure for the 6 weeks the baby is not here? And how would that be paid ... lump sum or spread out?

Am I totally over thinking this and being very hormonal or is this a real point?

Cozworth806

A new MA would be calc'd from the date of change, if you have given them forward notice.
If you are not working then he will get the full allowance (about £53pw, halved) within his new amount but if you earn over about £130 then it may be split 50/50 and then halved again so the difference in the new MA would be about £13pw.

As for the car allowance then it is quite dodgy ground if you conceal earnings. It can be looked upon as a criminal offence. The better course would be to submit it and then appeal the decision. I would agree that you should expect that it would be taken into account in full.

Found the decision, it may apply in your case that you could submit with your pay advice, or appeal
http://www.osscsc.gov.uk/judgmentfiles/j2279/R(CS)%204_08ws.doc

joanneg_2

Thanks.

Have spoken to a very helpful lady at the CSA today who confirmed everything I thought about the allowances and baby.

We have given them forward notice of the change of circumstances and will have to call when she is born. They then wait for proof of child benefit being paid and reassess on the information they will receive next week. They back date the re-assessment to the birth date of the baby.

She gave me a guideline of 2/3 weeks to assess us now as we're worried about having arrears but now we know an amount we can budget and be thankful it's temporary (thank god for grandparents happy to help us out).

One concern .... she did say that there could be a crossover of payment between this assessment and the re-assessment when the baby arrives so the PWC would be over paid. Do they claim that back and who does it go to if they do? And lets be honest what are the odds of her paying it back anyway?

marksoton

Any over payment your OH makes will just reduce future payments he makes until the overpayment is reduced to zero. At which point his normal assessment amount will resume.

BEE

Hi,

This may help you as the circumstances would appear to be similar.

R(CS) 4/08

Mr E A L Bano
Commissioner
23 October 2007

CCS/137/2007

Held, allowing the appeal, that:
1. in construing the words “wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred” it was appropriate to follow the approach taken by the House of Lords in IRC v Richards’ Executors [1971] 1 WLR 571 and to construe the words so as to produce a reasonable result in the relevant statutory context (paragraph 7);
2. in the context of the provisions of the 1992 Regulations governing the computation of the earnings of employed persons it could not have been intended that any personal use of a car by a non-resident parent should result in the whole of the amount paid by the employer in respect of the expenses of leasing the car being treated as available for the support of the relevant children and such an interpretation would produce the sort of discrimination between employed and self-employed persons which the Court of Appeal in Parsons v Hogg (reported as an appendix to R(FIS) 4/85) considered was unlikely to be intended by the legislationOn the statutory purpose of the calculation of the amount of earnings, I accept entirely the unique purpose of the child support scheme and recognise that the scheme may require painful reallocations of financial priorities for parents. However, I do not see how that undermines the fundamentals of Slade LJ’s approach [in Parsons v Hogg [1985] 2 All ER 897, reported as an appendix to R(FIS) 4/85]. The purpose of ascertaining a parent’s earnings under Schedule 1 to the MASC Regulations is to determine what income is available, from both the parent with care and the absent parent, to provide for the care of the children concerned. If a parent necessarily has to incur expenditure in the performance of the duties of employment from which earnings are derived, I cannot see how, on any footing and on any view of the appropriate priorities between personal expenditure and support for children, the earnings spent on that expenditure can be said to be available for the support of children.”
8. The non-resident parent in this case necessarily has to incur the costs of leasing a car in order to perform the duties of the employment from which the earnings used to maintain the relevant child are derived. I consider that it cannot have been intended in the context of the child support legislation that any personal use of a car by a non-resident parent should result in the whole of the amount paid by the employer in respect of the expenses of leasing the car being treated as available for the support of the relevant children Furthermore, a self-employed earner would undoubtedly be able to apportion the leasing costs of a car between business and personal use and unless employed persons are permitted to do likewise, there would be the sort of discrimination between employed and self-employed persons which the Court of Appeal in Parsons v Hogg (reported as an appendix to R(FIS) 4/85) considered was unlikely to be intended by the legislation.
. In accordance with the approach in R(FC) 1/91, the expenses which were wholly and exclusively incurred in the performance of those duties can then be ascertained by apportioning the costs between business and personal use on a mileage basis