The CSA, bank accounts and the law – some questions

Matt_Fry

So anyone who stands up to the CSA is a deadbeat dad?

CMAC_2

Matt_Fry wrote: »

So anyone who stands up to the CSA is a deadbeat dad?

No a dead beat dad is someone who does every thing they can to avoild the legal responsability

Matt_Fry

Thats what I thought, but I dont understand why people are posting this...

LizzieS wrote: »

is the fact that it appears you have no accounts yourself -

The payments I make are in goodwill and comply with my understanding of CS1 25%. I could stop all payments by tonight if I wanted to, and leave the CSA and PWC up a creek without a paddle, and that even if the CSA was able to seize a bank account.

REMO wouldnt work in the Nicosia magistrates court because only parents who choose to be absent are liable so currently I dont have any legal responsility at all.

CMAC_2

Matt_Fry wrote: »

Thats what I thought, but I dont understand why people are posting this...



The payments I make are in goodwill and comply with my understanding of CS1 25%. I could stop all payments by tonight if I wanted to, and leave the CSA and PWC up a creek without a paddle, and that even if the CSA was able to seize a bank account.

REMO wouldnt work in the Nicosia magistrates court because only parents who choose to be absent are liable so currently I dont have any legal responsility at all.

CSA 1 looks at 30% of net income number of children are not the real issues its net Income. REMO can work in Nicosia. Its not about choosing to be absent or not it about paying child support. In any event I suspect REMO would not be needed in this case, the trust you mention would be subject to CSA rules are in mosts cases you recieve renumaration for the admin of such a trust, also there is the issue of the boats I suspect a bailif could and would levey on them.

marksoton

Matt_Fry wrote: »

REMO wouldnt work in the Nicosia magistrates court because only parents who choose to be absent are liable so currently I dont have any legal responsility at all.

Be very careful. Greece is a REMO member. Just because the Greek law would not require payment does not mean they won't enforce a case from England.

You need to ringfence this estate money completely away from your own funds.

The main reason ( i suspect ) that none of the specialists could give you an answer is because no one knows !

It's new legislation and it is anyones guess how the CSA will use it. :rolleyes:

CMAC_2

marksoton wrote: »

Be very careful. Greece is a REMO member. Just because the Greek law would not require payment does not mean they won't enforce a case from England.

You need to ringfence this estate money completely away from your own funds.

The main reason ( i suspect ) that none of the specialists could give you an answer is because no one knows !

It's new legislation and it is anyones guess how the CSA will use it. :rolleyes:

The trust could be subject to a lump sum order. It would be subject to appeal for confimation of the final deduction the trust documents would be needed as a defenece other wise the statutory 8% court payment would be treated as income. Yes the same 8% used in a variation, its used across the board for this sort of thing.

marksoton

CMAC wrote: »

The trust could be subject to a lump sum order. It would be subject to appeal for confimation of the final deduction the trust documents would be needed as a defenece other wise the statutory 8% court payment would be treated as income. Yes the same 8% used in a variation, its used across the board for this sort of thing.

Understand that. But what concerns me is the way the agency will use the new CMEC powers.

As i stated i don't think anyone ( including the agency ) know exactly how they are going to exercise these powers.

Their history of wrongly and unfairly applying legislation is hardly unwarranted .

Matt_Fry

CMAC wrote: »

the trust you mention would be subject to CSA rules are in mosts cases you recieve renumaration for the admin of such a trust, also there is the issue of the boats I suspect a bailif could and would levey on them.

I presently dont draw an income from the trust for administrating it, only the maintenance of the child beneficiaries but I have bought them up the same way as my own children that live with me. I sought advice from a specialist maritime lawyer and the Royal Yachting Association. My UK boats cannot be levied on because they are business assets, finding a skipper willing to command them will be impossible to find and getting moorings will be also a problem. I think levies only apply to private recreational boats but its very rare due to impracticalities.

marksoton wrote: »

The main reason ( i suspect ) that none of the specialists could give you an answer is because no one knows !

I have a feeling you are probably right.

CMAC_2

marksoton wrote: »

Understand that. But what concerns me is the way the agency will use the new CMEC powers.

As i stated i don't think anyone ( including the agency ) know exactly how they are going to exercise these powers.

Their history of wrongly and unfairly applying legislation is hardly unwarranted .

The legislation is new but the lump sum order has been trialled for months by eversheds under third party debt orders going after directors dividends via there accountants.

Matt_Fry

CMAC wrote: »

The trust could be subject to a lump sum order.

Its a discretionary trust to pay for the upkeep and to educate the children and pay the remaining capital equally between when they each attain 25. There is no provision that allows me to draw an income from it. The proceeds largely came from insurance policies and the sale of their fathers house. I had the option of moving into their house but we thought best to have the children live with us because I had since had my own children.