How much info should we give - variation?

speedster

you have nothing to fear. just supply income details as required by law.

if she cant prove any of her claims it will be thrown out. it's not down to you to prove yourself. she's the one applying, so the onus is on her.

she wont have enough grounds to take it to tribunal either.

her variation will fail. gauranteed. :T

alwayspuzzled

Thanks Speedster, have supplied everything they asked for and checked with the PO website that it was delivered.
I know we haven't hidden anything and nor have we diverted income or any of the other things claimed, she has stated that he made contributions via buying her stuff but says that she didn't take any money from him because it came with "strings attached" although what shes on about we haven't a clue, she did have money from him but I guess she would be in trouble with the benefits if she addmitted to this.
She already stated on the day she recieved the first assesment that she was taking us to a tribunal. Does she have to have grounds for this or can she just do it out of vindictiveness?

speedster

alwayspuzzled wrote: »

Thanks Speedster, have supplied everything they asked for and checked with the PO website that it was delivered.
I know we haven't hidden anything and nor have we diverted income or any of the other things claimed, she has stated that he made contributions via buying her stuff but says that she didn't take any money from him because it came with "strings attached" although what shes on about we haven't a clue, she did have money from him but I guess she would be in trouble with the benefits if she addmitted to this.
She already stated on the day she recieved the first assesment that she was taking us to a tribunal. Does she have to have grounds for this or can she just do it out of vindictiveness?

she has every right to appeal as does the nrp, but..............

sour grapes mean it will not go past appeals level. if she is spouting hot air, then the tribunal will be a wasted exercise as it will fail miserably.

my case went to tribunal a few years back. i provided all the info i was "legally" required too and let them come to their own decision as most of my ex'es claims were just hot air. she even harped on about the classic motorbike i have sat in the shed that i've owned for yonks!!

vindictiveness doesn't go down to well when all the tribunal is looking for is facts. it just makes the pwc look more petty and ridiculous than they are.

bdt1

Agree with you Speedster, at our 2005 TRibunal when PWC decalred income inconsistent with lifestyle, she lost her case, she has written to our 2010 Tribunal judge, telling he he should basically conclude the 2nd appeal asap, and has suggested to him that enforcement action be reinstated for the arrears I do not owe. Even though ICE involved and told CSA to stop enforcement, as CSA Appeals themselves agree our assessment and alleged arrears are 'incorrect in law'. Sure the Judge will love her, silly moo, she's surely just getting Judge's back up.

In 2005 tRIBUNAL PWC started making accusations, talking about all kinds of allegations etc etc, don't think the Judge liked this, like to base everything on fact only, not interested in the rantings of the PWC. Mind the Judge wasn't interested either in the fact that I had to gain an injunction against the PWC after she assualted me and my wife, kept hanging around our home, was phoning us non stop, writing nasty letters to my wife and mother, and taking pictures of my ds with my new wife. Some people are just Hell bent on destroying others, very strange

Soubrette

speedster wrote: »

if the pwc is claiming deprivation of income or lifestly inconsistent, then unless she has proof of this, the appeal will fail.

all you are obliged to provide is wage details for the nrp.

are you LTD by any chance??

Even if the PWC provides proof of this, the CSA will almost certainly fail a lifestyle inconsistent with income variation - it's what they do.

My experience of a Tribunal is very different to yours though Speedster, my ex has been asked to provide everything from personal bank accounts to credit card and loan accounts and business accounts from the last three years. He refused to provide some and received a stern letter about it. Stern enough that he then provided the rest of what was requested.

It's not about the snottiness of the PWC or NRP when it comes to a Tribunal it's about what income the NRP has and in my experience the Tribunal investigates fully. The Tribunal judges may not like the attitude of either the PWC or NRP but their judgement should not be coloured by this.

If you have nothing to fear then a Tribunal will hold no threat to you - you will merely have to provide proof of how you could afford to go on holidays etc. If you have been hiding your income then a Tribunal will not be very pleasant and you may well end up having HMRC involved as well (depends on how vindictive your PWC is I suppose).

Sou

alwayspuzzled

The problem isn't proving how we've paid for things because we simply haven't done the things she claims, I've sent in the WEM for my prize holiday but how do I prove we haven't been on holiday twice a year every year. I guess they can check with the DVLA that we haven't bought the new cars and van that she claims and I could send the kids bank books in to show I haven't been diverting income to them. She seems to want a share of my £1000 premium bonds but as my parents bought them for me years ago and they are therefore clearly nrpp's and predate our relationship I don't think they are relevant. I think her main issue is jealously because I have worked all my life to build the life I want for my children and yes when we met I owned a nice house that nrp moved into but the fact that he lived in my house did not mean that he was suddenly loaded. She's moaning I pay for before and after school club for my boys and seems to think that this is proof of a privalaged lifestyle rather than nessescity for a full time working mother. When it comes to a tribunal do they look at CC debt etc because ours is scary - was our only means of getting through while our business quietly died a death during the stress of dealing with child protection enquiry nrp grown up drug fueled stepchildren instegated.
Working on the debt free thing using advice from this site:)

applecharlotte

speedster wrote: »

she has every right to appeal as does the nrp, but..............

sour grapes mean it will not go past appeals level. if she is spouting hot air, then the tribunal will be a wasted exercise as it will fail miserably.

my case went to tribunal a few years back. i provided all the info i was "legally" required too and let them come to their own decision as most of my ex'es claims were just hot air. she even harped on about the classic motorbike i have sat in the shed that i've owned for yonks!!

vindictiveness doesn't go down to well when all the tribunal is looking for is facts. it just makes the pwc look more petty and ridiculous than they are.

I thought sour grapes and vindictiveness were exactly what the CSA liked. They are not there to support children and chase geniune cases. The vindictive ones make things much easier for them IMHO