Too Many Loopholes for NRP!

PlayingHardball

I read all the time on this forum of others like me (PWC) who have to battle it out with a non-compliant NRP who refuses to pay for their kid, finding any loophole available to do just that! Here are some, see if you can add to them:

Self Employed
Leaving the country/work abroad
Quit job/sign on
Leave employment to go full time education

The current Child Support Laws in the UK have got to change! Good changes have begun with the white paper in 2006 which is slowly making positive changes (to some, not so positive!) But improvements are happening, but CMEC/CSA are still turning their backs on thousands and thousands of children who need financial support from BOTH parents.

It really angers me, so much so that I have involved my MP and have looked into who else I can 'education' in Government about our lax laws. Others have mentioned on this forum, www.theyworkforyou.com' and I have picked an opposition MP to involve as well (Lord McKenzie of Luton)

Has anyone else done this, or am I just taking it too far? Is there anything else I can do? I really thing we need better laws!

Or, should I just have to accept that my ex will get away with either 'never paying' or causing me years of agro in attempting to get him to do so?

I feel I should add 'PHB for Councillor'!

Seriously, I've gotten to know far more about UK child support law then I ever hoped to know! (I know there are NRP out there who feel the same)

DUTR

Should this not be in DT?
perhaps the pyschology should be in there, PAY or CONTRIBUTE?
Perhaps for some if they linked contact with contribution a lot of cases would be resolved.
Pay is a reward not a punishment.
I do pay up but I can see why many others avoid where ever possible.

Marisco

I can see PHB point as my daughter has been in that situation. However I can also see it from a NRP view as well, as my oh was getting royally screwed by the CSA!! They were taking nearly half his pay!! (This was 14 years ago) With a lot of NRP's I don't think its so much that they don't want to pay, but more the amount! I know there are many deadbeats out there, but the CSA seem to always go for the "soft option" and screw those who are trying to do their best!! I think they cause more problems than they are worth quite frankly!! Everything was going fine 'till they got involved, then oh had to stop paying the mortgage and ex's debts, to the detriment of all of us:mad: He was seriously thinking of giving up work, that's how bad it got!!! Why can't they leave those alone who have a perfectly good arrangement, and concentrate on those who try to avoid paying anything!!

ses6jwg

The whole system needs reviewing.

I have my daughter half the week and I am still expected to pay maintainance! To a woman who sits on her !!!! on benefits all day long living off state handouts, and who is out getitng !!!!ed and snorting coke 3 times a week.

But oh no, I'm just an optional extra - a Dad, so nobody in authority gives a damn how we feel. Whole system is completely sexist.

But get no child tax credit, or child benefit.

Absolute joke.

AnxiousMum

ses6jwg wrote: »

The whole system needs reviewing.

I have my daughter half the week and I am still expected to pay maintainance! To a woman who sits on her !!!! on benefits all day long living off state handouts, and who is out getitng !!!!ed and snorting coke 3 times a week.

But oh no, I'm just an optional extra - a Dad, so nobody in authority gives a damn how we feel. Whole system is completely sexist.

But get no child tax credit, or child benefit.

Absolute joke.

I'd be more concerned for the welfare of my child than the benefits!

PHB - as you know, I'm dealing with REMO and my case is dealt with in Canada, and enforced under Canadian law. My ex tried to quit work and go to school full time in order to get out of payments of child support - didn't work - still had to pay based on his average wage over the previous three years (after all, he wouldn't be able to afford it if we were together and had children to support would he?). He ended up having to do his course part time. His income in self employment miraculously went from over $100K per year down to eventually $3,000 per year - again, court didn't believe it and imputed an income after declaring he was either hiding his income (couldn't show any credit card bills, loan payments etc. to show that he wasn't living off of wages/cash jobs) or making himself intentionally unemployed. These tricks do seem to work here, but they don't in other places.
Enforcement wise - after just a couple of months, there is now a lien on his house, a lien on his boat, an interception of federal funds/rebates, and a note on his credit file about his outsanding debt to the maintenance enforcement people. He has 'offered' to repay his arrears at $600 per month - inclusive of his regular $561 per month in child support. At that rate, we'd both be dead of old age before he ever repaid it - and it has been flat out refused as being acceptable by the maintenance enforcement people. They will go for no less than 20% of his income per month (inclusive of current maintenance).

But.......by the same token, while they are strict on the child support, they are equally as strict on things such as access. I see too many times here that a pwc will use the access as a weapon of choice, and not allow it if child support has not been paid. The nrp then has very little help in ensuring that the access is granted. Quite simply at home, if a parent doesn't allow access, it can be considered kidnapping, and at very least, a contempt of court charge for ignoring a court order.

PHB - I agree wholeheartedly that the CSA needs to be totally revamped here, yet so does custody and access laws.

For every CSA story I read on here, I am gladder each time that I deal with the Canadian system!

Sidekick_2

Hi
The system doesn’t want improving it wants scrapping; the system has never worked properly for parents or children. The CSA cost the taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds each year and continue to make mistakes on basic mathematical calculations. This in turn cost of taxpayer in appeals and legal actions many millions of pounds more.

The CSA should be abolished, and child maintenance collected via the tax system.

All is needed is a tax code extension with three variations for example:-
One child at 15% CM1
Two children at 20% CM2
Three or more children at 25% CM3

The child maintenance would be collected by the employer and sent to the tax office, where it could be credited to the PWC.

Simply solution, all NRP would pay if working.
And the money save could be spent combating benefits fraud and CM avoidance.

PlayingHardball

Sidekick, that is an excellent solution, and I agree it is a waste of tax payers money the millions spent on a failing service. It sounds too simple!!

My ex's loophold wouldn't fit this scenario though, as he has income outside of the NI system in the UK. Thats where the CSA would still have to have powers in variation applications, etc.

Thanks for the post.

gratefulforhelp_2

dutr what happens then to CS for children whose NRPs don't want to bother with contact or paying for them? There are quite a few.

PHB you can add to the list moving home repeatedly and not informing people, giving up a job, claiming you are going on the dole and then not letting on you have a new better paid job, refusing to answer letters or phonecalls (or the door!). If you want a comprehensive list then you have to pay a fee to a "dodge the CSA" website and there are plenty.

I'm not sure its constructive to start with NRP v PWC as we all know there are bad and good in each...

HappyMJ

Sidekick wrote: »

Hi
The system doesn’t want improving it wants scrapping; the system has never worked properly for parents or children. The CSA cost the taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds each year and continue to make mistakes on basic mathematical calculations. This in turn cost of taxpayer in appeals and legal actions many millions of pounds more.

The CSA should be abolished, and child maintenance collected via the tax system.

All is needed is a tax code extension with three variations for example:-
One child at 15% CM1
Two children at 20% CM2
Three or more children at 25% CM3

The child maintenance would be collected by the employer and sent to the tax office, where it could be credited to the PWC.

Simply solution, all NRP would pay if working.
And the money save could be spent combating benefits fraud and CM avoidance.

My simple solution to this would be to not work for an employer.

Become self employed. Write off legitimate business expenses against income i.e 40p/mile mileage, accomodation allowances etc..., pay a pathetically small salary to the NRP, employ a company secretary to do the books on at least minimum wage (who would probably be the NRP's new partner) and then forward 15-25% of NRP's small salary to PWC.

DUTR

gratefulforhelp wrote: »

dutr what happens then to CS for children whose NRPs don't want to bother with contact or paying for them? There are quite a few.


I'm not sure its constructive to start with NRP v PWC as we all know there are bad and good in each...

I don't have the answer, perhaps if the maximum recieved was limited to say what CB is or factored by the income of the PWC, then perhaps some may not find the process unfair or as a money spinner ?

PlayingHardball

HappyMJ wrote: »

My simple solution to this would be to not work for an employer.

Become self employed. Write off legitimate business expenses against income i.e 40p/mile mileage, accomodation allowances etc..., pay a pathetically small salary to the NRP, employ a company secretary to do the books on at least minimum wage (who would probably be the NRP's new partner) and then forward 15-25% of NRP's small salary to PWC.

Until you get hit with a variation order from the CSA, lifestyle 'inconsistent'......sadly for people quite willing to dodge their financial responsibilities to their children such as yourself, this won't guarantee you any success.