Benefits total disregard - hooray

MIKEtheBIKE_2

Lots of people may not be aware of the fact that CSA/CMEC rules have now changed so that PWCs on benefit can now keep ALL of the child support money without it affecting their benefits at all.

This has come into force April 2010 and is mentioned in the small print on CSA and CMEC websites. They have only just put it there - I have been watching for months. So it is definitely official.

This is quite possibly the most sensible thing that CSA/CMEC have ever done.

Many people like myself have had a private arrangement that works - in my case for over 10 years, which was until now illegal.

My ex - the PWC - has been on benefits for years because our only son is severely disabled. She is his carer, which anyone in similar circumstances will agree, is a 24/7 job in itself.
Every penny I should have given to the CSA would have made NO diference to her income whatsoever. So £50 per week straight from me to the government and NOTHING to her or my disabled son.
Where is the logic to that?

Apparently I now owe the CSA £15,000 for money that I paid directly to my ex and my son. Well as long as I'm alive they won't be getting a penny of it. My case obviously started 13 years too early.

Can any of you CSA guys tell me what the Decision Maker's guide says about how it affects arrears?

kelloggs36

it will still be recoverable for arrears as the arrears covers a specific period. The new regs have not been made to work retrospectively.

MIKEtheBIKE_2

Thanks Kellogs. But do you know what the DM guide has to say about it?

kelloggs36

No, but unless the statutory instrument says that the law is to be applied retrospectively, it won't be. Basically if the arrears built up before 12 April then they are still owed.

kingfisherblue

Every penny I should have given to the CSA would have made NO diference to her income whatsoever. So £50 per week straight from me to the government and NOTHING to her or my disabled son.

Why would she have received nothing? If she is on benefits, she would have received £20 a week for the last eighteen months or so, and £10 a week before that.

I am in exactly the same position as your ex - a single parent with a severely disabled child to care for - and the above disregards applied. the difference is that I was honest and declared the CM (on the few occasions that I received it!).

As for arrears, my ex still has to pay what he owes as he ran up arrears previously. You will also have to pay yours, unless, of course, your ex admits that she has already received the money and has been commiting benefit fraud by not declaring it.

speedster

all this new ruling is doing is distancing the csa and promoting benefit fraud.

exactly how many pwc do you think are going to declare the money they recieve?

and for the career pwc's/4x4's who fire out a kid to every bloke daft enough to shack up with them, it's open season to up their income by 5-10k a year per sprog.

kelloggs36

but it isn't promoting fraud as it is totally legal!!!!! That's why it is so wrong.

kelloggs36

Or are you talking about the arrears?

MIKEtheBIKE_2

Why should it be wrong for the PWC to get Child Maintenance on top of their benefits?
The biggest problem for an absent parent not giving money to the CSA is that their child would not benefit at all if the PWC is on long term benefits. And the AP has no control over the PWC being on benefits or not.

By the way - I was on CS1 and my case closed in June 2009 and I am told that there was not a £10 disregard. I am sure there used to be a disregard before 2000 - can anyone shed any light on that?

And as for benefit fraud - is it not correct that there is/was a £20 BENEFITS disregard. And is it not true that a 3rd party can pay certain bills for the claimant without affecting benefits - regardless of amount. It says this in IS20 benefits guide book.

kelloggs36

MIKEtheBIKE wrote: »

Why should it be wrong for the PWC to get Child Maintenance on top of their benefits? A certain amount certainly, but why should the taxpayer give somebody money who does not need it? The law states how much somebody needs to live on who does not work so they do not need support from the taxpayer. The tax needs to be used on things which benefits everybody - we have a huge deficit at the moment which needs to be paid off. Why should somebody who does not work end up with lots more money than somebody who works?
The biggest problem for an absent parent not giving money to the CSA is that their child would not benefit at all if the PWC is on long term benefits. but they do because the taxpayer pays. And the AP has no control over the PWC being on benefits or not. irrelevant.

By the way - I was on CS1 and my case closed in June 2009 and I am told that there was not a £10 disregard. I am sure there used to be a disregard before 2000 - can anyone shed any light on that? there used to be a £10 per week child maintenance bonus which was put aside until the PWC left benefits. If they didn't leave benefits, they didn't get it. It was phased out when the £20 disregard came in.

And as for benefit fraud - is it not correct that there is/was a £20 BENEFITS disregard. And is it not true that a 3rd party can pay certain bills for the claimant without affecting benefits - regardless of amount. It says this in IS20 benefits guide book.

And? Any money received outside of benefits should have been declared - including money in kind, ie directly paid bills etc. The child support disregard was £20 per week

AnxiousMum

I guess the underlying fact is that your ex is going to have to state that yes, she did receive those funds from you and that you do not owe arrears as you paid it directly to her. In that case, wouldn't she then be admitting to benefit fraud - by not declaring the income she was receiving in child support from you?

In the past, lone single parents on IS have been able to claim IS off of the state to help provide for their children. That doesn't however diminish the absent parent's responsibility in helping provide for the child/ren of the relationship - and some of that has been repayable to the state for the monies they have fronted to your ex.

I wonder how many others are going to be stung now for arrears only to learn that the PWC has not been declaring receipt of the funds directly and be open to charges of benefit fraud? The OP states quite clearly in original post that their arrangement was done purely to get around the monies being returned to IS and the ex only getting the £20 disregard.

I guess the oP has one of two choices - pay up the arrears, or the ex has to admit the fraud!