OH's children, ex and money

Errata

I suppose the plain truth is that your OH knew he was a loser and kicked him into touch, now he's provided concrete proof of what a total loser he is. You may have to live with it. You don't have to, of course, but if you chose to you may not be able to do anything other than take it on the chin.

Oldernotwiser

rockingit wrote: »

The only bit of this that I challenge is that if it's been done deliberately to deny someone what you justifiably owe them, or would owe them, then it IS fraud by definition of the Act.

Morally wrong,yes - fraud no.

rockingit_2

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Morally wrong,yes - fraud no.

I'm
a) very grateful for the feedback and board help
b) you seem to be very certain in your assertion that it's not fraud - and I just thought I'd find out how or why.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no expert, but I had to do some pdq cribbing up on the subject last year due to some business issues (even resulting in discussions with the fraud squad) and by me reckoning, the definitions of the Act itself are no different here.

If you know different I'd love to hear why it is!

Caroline73_2

It's not fraud because he doesn't have to work. Unfortunately for your family, he only has to pay maintenance as a percentage of his income, so by reducing his income his is still doing what he must.

He sounds like a great piece of work!

rockingit_2

This is lifted directly out of the Fraud Act 2006.....where's the difference?

4 Fraud by abuse of position
(1) A person is in breach of this section if he—
(a) occupies a position in which he is expected to safeguard, or not to act
against, the financial interests of another person,
(b) dishonestly abuses that position, and
(c) intends, by means of the abuse of that position—
(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.
(2) A person may be regarded as having abused his position even though his
conduct consisted of an omission rather than an act.

Oldernotwiser

You couldn't possibly have a law that requires someone to stay in a job- it would be against their human rights.

rockingit_2

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

You couldn't possibly have a law that requires someone to stay in a job- it would be against their human rights.

But it's interesting that the government do recognise it by virtue that they restrict someone's JSA.... it's just completely jumbled logic! Anyway.....thanks to all, this isn't meant as a discussion about the finer points of law so let's not get more sidetracked than I've led us already.....;)

The long and short of it is the bloke is a * and we're pee'd off with him!!!

kindofagilr

red_devil wrote: »

if your sure he has given up his job on purpose then report him you dont have to say who it is do you?

Is he not within his rights to quit woerk if he wants to?

Do tax credits take maintenance into account?

If so then maybe the tax credits will increase now the maintenance has decreased?

busiscoming2

Surely its his choice if he works or not? Yes it is being a toe rag and letting his children down.
You are doing a good job (by the sound of it) in being there as a solid father figure.

Unfortunately when you take on someone else's kids, taking on the financial burden of them too is part of the package IMHO. I don't think there are many separated parents that can rely on continual maintenance payments, unless it is just my experience!

You will probably find his contact with his children will dwindle away too.

Agree with another poster about putting off trying for another child if you are struggling to support the current family unit.

Errata

Bottom line is if the OP thinks the ex is committing fraud, shop him and have done with it.