getting a bigger mortgage to avoid child support

Loopy_Girl

speedster wrote: »

personnally i think it was fairer in some ways as at least you had some protected income and some of your living costs were allowed for.

unlike csa2 where it's a case of "one size fits all" when it clearly doesn't.

But then some NRP's were taking whacking great mortgages out or home loans or shoving money into their pension to avoid CS. Dead fair.

15% for one child? God yeah, that's tons:rolleyes: put it this way, if I sold my child on ebay I can assure you I would be better than 15% of my income better off....


*note - I would never sell my child on ebay. They don't allow it:D

kelloggs36

13Kent wrote: »

We were under the impression that with a mortgage only the interest part of the payment is taken into account as the CSA ask for two amounts Not correct when working out the assessable income of the NRP, so for the OP the full amount of housing costs are takent into account.- the amount paid off the capital and the amount paid off the interest and the interest rate, but in the case of renting the full housing costs are taken into account.

You are referring to the calculation of the protected income which is important to the NRP not the PWC. This only takes account of the interest on the mortgage - basically you get less protected income; it does not have a bearing on the amount calculated.

kelloggs36

speedster wrote: »

correct.

csa1 was a total minefield and very complicated. some are better off, some are worse off. Those who paid the full rate of 30% of net income will all be better off. Those who had high housing costs are worse off as they have to pay those PLUS the fixed % of their net income. There are however, many less people paying nothing which is what happened under CS1 - particularly those with high housing costs - they could afford large mortgages, but couldn't pay for their children.........

personnally i think it was fairer in some ways as at least you had some protected income and some of your living costs were allowed for.

unlike csa2 where it's a case of "one size fits all" when it clearly doesn't.

No but I actually think it is fairer - at least you can work out before you buy a house what you have left over after paying your child support.

speedster

yep. very true. :rotfl:

AuntieH

If you are on CSA1 and his housing costs go up and this affects your payments significantly you can ask to close your case, wait 13 weeks (I think it is) then start up a new case on CSA2 where housing costs ect are not taken into account.
This happened to my husband, he had a nil assessment due to several things including: him supporting my 3 children; we had a home improvements loan to build an extra bedroom because we now had 5 kids at weekends and holidays (this was taken into account on CSA1); also his son was staying at our house 2-3 nights per week which is classed as shared care in CSA1. The payment went to £130 per month when his ex-wife switched to CSA2. I have no idea how they justify this, i.e. they could live on £0 in CSA1 assessment but need £130/ month in CSA2. At the time it was fine for us as we were paying her voluntary payments of £100 per month for two years as I we didn't really agree with a nil assessment - there can't be any such thing when a man has kids and is working, he should always contribute something. But clearly there is something incredibly wrong with the system when you can be awarded £0 in one assessment and £130 in the other !!!!!

13Kent

Of course there is something wrong with the system!

We are on CSA 1 and we pay nearly £600 a month for 2 children. On CSA 2 we would pay £288 but there is no chance of us moving on to CSA 2 !!!

It would be like going to the supermarket and being told you have to pay £2 for milk because of your circumstances, but the person next to you only has to pay 50p!!

Kimitatsu

13Kent - sonce when did anyone tell you the system was fair?

We too pay over £600 for two children on CS1 and recieve from my ex husband £5 a week for the two that live with us on CS2.................right now I would be happy with £37 a week!

OP as I have been told - if you have reason to think that the NRP's wages have increased then it is up to YOU to tell the CSA so they reassess him. How you are supposed to know is beyond me but thats the ruling, so unfortunately you will always be behind in the wage increases.

It does sound like you are on CS2 though, so let him buy his bigger house and just smile sweetly when he tells you he will have to pay less maintenace - you know differently!

shell_542

It would be interesting to know what the sentence in the OP actually means :

i have just heard that my ex is considering buying a new house with a much bigger mortgage in order not to pay child support - Who told you? Him? Admitting that it was in order to pay less child support? If not him, who?

Or ...

i have just heard that my ex is considering buying a new house with a much bigger mortgage (is what the OP was actually told) in order not to pay child support (is the OP's opinion)

If he is on CS2 and told you or someone you know, he is upping his mortgage partly to pay less child support, then he will be sorely mistaken.

But if you've just heard he's buying a more expensive house, it might be nothing to do with child support, especially if he knows he is on CS2 and his living costs were never taken into consideration on any assessment in the past.

LizzieS_2

shell_542 wrote: »

It would be interesting to know what the sentence in the OP actually means :

i have just heard that my ex is considering buying a new house with a much bigger mortgage in order not to pay child support - Who told you? Him? Admitting that it was in order to pay less child support? If not him, who?

Or ...

i have just heard that my ex is considering buying a new house with a much bigger mortgage (is what the OP was actually told) in order not to pay child support (is the OP's opinion)

If he is on CS2 and told you or someone you know, he is upping his mortgage partly to pay less child support, then he will be sorely mistaken.

But if you've just heard he's buying a more expensive house, it might be nothing to do with child support, especially if he knows he is on CS2 and his living costs were never taken into consideration on any assessment in the past.

Most of the posts will contain the truth as seen by the OP, or miss out other relevant data to make it look worse than it really is.

To take the other extreme, a nrrp will nearly always meet a nrp who had to give up his house to the ex, but she herself will either have nothing from her own ex or is a new wife who had saved her earnings over the years and has a partner unable to match her contribution.

shell_542

LizzieS wrote: »

Most of the posts will contain the truth as seen by the OP, or miss out other relevant data to make it look worse than it really is.

To take the other extreme, a nrrp will nearly always meet a nrp who had to give up his house to the ex, but she herself will either have nothing from her own ex or is a new wife who had saved her earnings over the years and has a partner unable to match her contribution.

Sorry Lizzie, I don't understand your last paragraph. Its more than likely me not getting it but I don't understand what you mean with regards to my quote.