Benefits total disregard - hooray

kingfisherblue

Anxious Mum, you said exectly what I wanted to say, but put it much more clearly.

moomoomama27

Why should it be wrong for the PWC to get Child Maintenance on top of their benefits?

Because the benefits like IS are means tested, and are what is the correct amount for someone out of work who qualifies to live on, makes a mockery of means tested benefits if certain groups of people can have x amount of money more!

I was always under the impression that CSA was collected from NRPs regardless of the PWC finacial position, but in the case of PWC being on benefit, it went to the government to offset their benefits, that presumably they wouldn;t be on if the PWC and the NRP were not seperated (assuming that they were a 'working' family unit.)

This new rule is ridiculous, unfair and makes a mockery of our IMHO already over generous benefit system! Hopefully the government will realise their great error and change the laws on this, because there is no way this will ever help the economy, and it certainly will encourage people to a) either commit benefit fraud, or b) never even think of returning or starting work! Big mistake!!!!

speedster

AnxiousMum wrote: »

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!

they might as well confess to it. i've yet to hear of the DWP actually pursuing any pwc for fraud.

my mp is looking into it as i provided concrete proof of my pwc's fraud to the csa and dwp, yet strangely, they have done naff all about it.

speedster

kelloggs36 wrote: »

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

yes it is. they have just moved the goal posts to save themselves the hassle of policing it.

exactly the same as they have done with the planning regs fiasco.

MIKEtheBIKE_2

From these comments it seems that most people assume that everyone on benefits is milking the system and can afford not to be.

Faced with the dilemna of giving a large chunk of your hard earned cash to the goverment every week or directly towards the upkeep of your child, what would you guys do?

And from the point of view of the PWC, living on barely enough benefits from the government and really struggling to make ends meet, and trying to care for a child - a disabled one - would you turn down any extra pennies you could get your hands on?

The situation HAS been declared to the CSA by both myself and the PWC and they have said it has no relevence.

By the way - the CSA spend more collecting money than they actually collect and they are still owed many BILLIONS in arrears that is uncollectible. How does that fair on the taxpayer?

kelloggs36

speedster wrote: »

yes it is. they have just moved the goal posts to save themselves the hassle of policing it.

exactly the same as they have done with the planning regs fiasco.

No it isn't because there is no longer a disregard, so there is no fraud.

kelloggs36

MIKEtheBIKE wrote: »

From these comments it seems that most people assume that everyone on benefits is milking the system and can afford not to be. No, but if the law is set which states you can be given X to live on, then you should not be allowed to have loads extra! Pay back the taxpayer who is subsidising the life of the PWC and child.

Faced with the dilemna of giving a large chunk of your hard earned cash to the goverment every week or directly towards the upkeep of your child, what would you guys do? I would do what was within the law - previously it meant that I would have got no extra if I had been on benefits, and had I been an NRP then I would have complied with the law whether I liked it or not. I don't agree with the new rules, but it doesn't mean I can or will do anything about it.

And from the point of view of the PWC, living on barely enough benefits from the government and really struggling to make ends meet, and trying to care for a child - a disabled one - would you turn down any extra pennies you could get your hands on? if it meant I was committing fraud, then I'm afraid that I would - I'm one of those people who believe that I would get caught if I did wrong - I have a moral compass.

The situation HAS been declared to the CSA by both myself and the PWC and they have said it has no relevence. The CSA don't deal with benefit fraud - it is income support.

By the way - the CSA spend more collecting money than they actually collect and they are still owed many BILLIONS in arrears that is uncollectible. How does that fair on the taxpayer?

it may appear not to be, but how is it fair to those who are owed money to not get any? It has cost so much more now because they were so inefficient in the past - now they crack down much harder, much quicker so the problem of building up huge arrears should no longer apply.

speedster

kelloggs36 wrote: »

No it isn't because there is no longer a disregard, so there is no fraud.

that's my point.

they've just skirted the problem by moving the goal posts.

watch the new breed of vicky pollard/wanynetta slob "career pwc's" numbers dramatically increase.

the scummy mummy's christmas' have all come at once.

more kids by more fathers=more money.

simplezzzzz

Loopy_Girl

Not really.

The simple answer to stop these women trying to 'trap' men for money would be for the man to take responsibility (instead of believing her) and wearing a condom.

Takes 2 to make a baby but only one to stop it and for a moment there I thought there was a neanderthal thinking that it was only a female that was in charge of birth control.

No man has to say they got 'trapped'. Ever

Loopy_Girl

MIKEtheBIKE wrote: »

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?

No there was no disregard for CS1 prior to 2000. The disregard for CS1 cases came into effect in 2008 when the amount was increased from £10 to £20 on CS2 and they decided to include CS1.