Q&A with Work and Pensions Minister Maria Miller on child support changes

mrsspendalot

PreludeForTimeFeelers wrote: »

The aim is for this new 'future scheme' to start in the Autumn of this year

I was wondering if they had a start date in mind, as obviously the legislation passed by the previous government had the future gross income scheme already confirmed and ready for introduction this year. I couldn't find any info on whether this government were sticking to that date or pushing it back further in light of the consultation (which seems only to be on the topic of fees really, they aren't changing the % of gross income to be used). I'm glad it's not going to drag on for too long, as the system is frustrating enough without the uncertainty of if and when they will change it! Thanks for this.

Kellynov1978

I'm sort of on the fence on this one tbh!! I'm hoping that now my OH and his ex r on speaking terms again by the time this comes into place they will go back to having a private arrangement.

Tbh my OH's ex is in a good poition really because my OH has always paid child support, and she only went via csa out of spite and because she wanted to cut my OH out of his children's lives so she knows if she opts to revert back to PA she will always get her money!!

I do think the csa should close all cases and start from scratch and i do think in some cases(like ours) it will help that the applicant will be charged a fee for applyingas it will help to stop vindictive ex's lol!!, but on the other hand i understand some PWC have no choice but to go through csa because of non-compliant NRP's and it is unfair they will now have to pay a fee. It would be nice if CSA could do the charges on a case by case basis I suppose, depending on circumstances but obviously this isn't possible because of the workloads they have!! I think with something like CSA there are always going to be people who are going to be better or worse off because of it, and it is never going to work our 'fairly' for everyone.

mrsspendalot

Kellynov1978 wrote: »

some PWC have no choice but to go through csa because of non-compliant NRP's and it is unfair they will now have to pay a fee. It would be nice if CSA could do the charges on a case by case basis I suppose, depending on circumstances but obviously this isn't possible because of the workloads they have!!

I agree - and even though I will object to having a fee to pay, I will have to swallow it and pay it if that's what it takes, as there is no way I will be able to make a private agreement with my ex. If he can happily sit and avoid the CSA for a year, then I'm not going to have any joy! On the other hand, the introduction of the fee will mean that at the other side of my involvement with the CSA, our PWC will probably happily go back to a private agreement with my husband, as she only went to the CSA out of spite in the first place. So it will be a positive in that sense.

Winners and losers - but that is the same in any system I suppose.

clearingout

but can we please make sure that the 'fee' is charged to the non-compliant or vindictive side and NOT the side that needs the money, please?!!!!!

As for scrapping the CSA and starting again. No! You will be letting off hundreds, if not thousands, of non-compliant NRPs. I am reliant on the CSA eventually catching up with my ex so that I can make a sizeable contribution to my non-existent pension fund. I can't make contributions now as I need every penny. The way I see it, my non-compliant NRP is a kind of savings club I didn't ask to belong to but intend to take advantage of as best I can - there is no way I'd be saving the amount he has to pay me each month if he did pay me so at some level, we'll all be quids in when (IF) they ever catch him!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And please, dont' yell at me for not spending it on my children - I do enough of that now, enough of going without personally, to make sure they have what they need. Some money in my pocket in old age is all I'm asking for!

JSB43

Im neither a PWC or an NRP, but many around me are. I thought I would add my thoughts to your questions/comments you have put forward.

clearingout wrote: »

but can we please make sure that the 'fee' is charged to the non-compliant or vindictive side and NOT the side that needs the money, please?!!!!!

I think the only route is to set a % according to number of children and deduct the administration cost from that, rather then set x% + admin fee. CSA fees arent new and the last time they were introduced, most of the NRP population disappeared. I agree that enforcemebnt fees can be charged according to work done but recovering them is difficult. A Freedom of Information Act request to the Local Goverment Association on council tax enforcemnent rates tell you its not a practical solution.

clearingout wrote: »

As for scrapping the CSA and starting again. No!

The old courts system worked, If it wasnt broke, why did they try to fix it? Maggie Thatcher was a bit over-zealous with killing off the low-income communities e.g. the Poll Tax. Its time to kill off the relic from the Monetarianist institution introduced in the Thatcher era called the CSA and look to the EU and adopt the scheme that does work.

clearingout wrote: »

You will be letting off hundreds, if not thousands, of non-compliant NRPs.

The CSA might might be trying to take what is not there and that could explain why these NRPs are non compliant. The CSA dictates a liablility that is wrong then appeal limits go out of time. It never works and creates a perpetual debt mountain. Time to move on and try something else.

clearingout wrote: »

I am reliant on the CSA eventually catching up with my ex so that I can make a sizeable contribution to my non-existent pension fund. I can't make contributions now as I need every penny. The way I see it, my non-compliant NRP is a kind of savings club I didn't ask to belong to but intend to take advantage of as best I can - there is no way I'd be saving the amount he has to pay me each month if he did pay me so at some level, we'll all be quids in when (IF) they ever catch him!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And please, dont' yell at me for not spending it on my children - I do enough of that now, enough of going without personally, to make sure they have what they need. Some money in my pocket in old age is all I'm asking for!

Many NRPs arent allowed to pay their own housing costs let alone start a pension. That is the price of being a compliant NRP.

clearingout

JSB43 wrote: »

The CSA might might be trying to take what is not there and that could explain why these NRPs are non compliant. The CSA dictates a liablility that is wrong then appeal limits go out of time. It never works and creates a perpetual debt mountain. Time to move on and try something else.
Many NRPs arent allowed to pay their own housing costs let alone start a pension. That is the price of being a compliant NRP.

in the last 18 months, my ex and his girlfriend have had 3 foreign holidays, at least 2 foreign weekends away, have been to music festivals, spa days, Uk weekend breaks, have installed a hot tub and my ex boat a small yacht. The suggestion that that the CSA is trying to take what is not there is ludicrous. Are you suggesting that a non-compliant NRP such as mine should simply not have to pay because he doesn't want to or is able to get his accountant to hide much of his income?

CornishBloke29

Thats quite an accusation, if you have compelling evidence then both the taxpayer and the accountant can face charges of fraud by false representation, and can be struck off.

How do you know this income is not his partners income?

PreludeForTimeFeelers

mrsspendalot wrote: »

I was wondering if they had a start date in mind, as obviously the legislation passed by the previous government had the future gross income scheme already confirmed and ready for introduction this year. I couldn't find any info on whether this government were sticking to that date or pushing it back further in light of the consultation (which seems only to be on the topic of fees really, they aren't changing the % of gross income to be used). I'm glad it's not going to drag on for too long, as the system is frustrating enough without the uncertainty of if and when they will change it! Thanks for this.

I'm not aware of any actual start date yet, I think that the spending cuts have pushed things back a little bit in regards to the computer systems...also, the original plans (well, the plans 2 years back) were to outsource certain tasks to other external agencies...the spending cuts also affect this, and are going to mean that there will be a minimum of outsourcing now.

Like you said, the consultation is more about some of the finer details (mediation, fees) rather than the calculation.

clearingout

CornishBloke29 wrote: »

Thats quite an accusation, if you have compelling evidence then both the taxpayer and the accountant can face charges of fraud by false representation, and can be struck off.

How do you know this income is not his partners income?

a) he put his girlfriend on a very high salary for a job she didn't do (she worked full time elsewhere) This reduced his CSA liability by over 2/3rds. Evidence with CSA (business bank statements).
b) she's a book-keeper. You don't earn that sort of money as a book-keeper - unless you have two full time jobs and your boyfriend gives you a company car so you have no motoring costs either. Oh and she does have three children by three fathers so is probably raking it in through the CSA, eh?!!!
c) HMRC informed. I know for a fact that up to November 2009, the business had never paid any Corporation Tax (started up in 2005, made a profit for at least the first two years, accounts not been filed since). CSA have told me that they are no longer pursuing the business for maintenance but can't tell me why. Company in limbo on Companies House website - facing compulsory strike off but it's been suspended for over 7 months now. Pretty sure the business hasn't operated since end of March last year but he's still not working so he's living off something!

Reading between the lines, I suspect the HMRC and Companies House and the CSA are on his back quite heavily at the moment, hence him having gone AWOL at the beginning of this year (not heard from him at all - he used to call our children every day).

My ex is exactly the reason why 'letting off' non -compliant NRPs isn't acceptable. What I would like to see in a case like this, however, is far greater joined up working between the CSA, HMRC and other relevant agencies - Companies House in this case. It is clear he has been messing about for years - how can you not pay corporation tax for years and years and not get caught out? It's madness! I used to think that he had tossed and turned at night because of the stress of self-employment, now I know it was because he was not only in the middle of a torrid affair but was also fighting off every agency possible!

Meanwhile, three small children go without both a father financially and emotionally....

Matt_Fry

Update to the list of questions so far:

Strengthening Families

1. Current regulations prevent benefits and housing being awarded to persons whose circumstances as an unemployed/homeless person are self inflicted. Can we extend this rule to PWCs to they can claim child maintenance provided their circumstances as a single parent are not self-inflicted? Currently parents splitting up are being rewarded by over-generous benefits and child maintenance.

2. Can you introduce a rule for parents claiming child support from the state but fail to identify or conceal the other parents identity will forfeit their claim for state support.

3. Can you create a link between child maintenance paid by an NRP and prevention of contact with the same children by the PWC? This makes absent parents liable for child maintenance but not excluded parents.

4 Can the law be changed to recognise "Parental Alienation" and make it a criminal offence of child cruelty and legislate it alongside child sex offences and economic crimes?

5. Can the law be changed to recognise the difference between an absent parent and an "excluded" parent? an excuded parent is a parent whose absence from his children has been imposed on him, and should not liable for maintenance unless he is convicted (or awaiting trial pending conviction) of the reason why he has been excluded. This is to prevent parents depriving childen of the other parent in order to secure a financial gain, assets or a better qualify of life for herself.


Saving Public Money

1. Can we introduce a three-tier system for mediation on child custody. a) elf-mediation, b) mediation and c) adjudication? and follow the telephone based model used by the HM court service with small claims track cases and the NPAS model for adjudicating parking tickets appeals. Adjudication would be binding and failure to comply (could be for example) commits an offence of contempt of court and/or NRP becomes an absent parent (rather than an excluded parent) and is now liable for CM.

2. Can you end the policy allowing PWC to receive money as child support while claiming the same from state benefits concurrently? This only stimulates single parent families and NRP commit benefit fraud if he did the same.

3. Can you introduce a fairer child maintenance system that does not encourage NRPs to opt out of the UK tax system and joining the hidden-economy or getting work on more hospitable jurisdictions?

4. Can you introduce a new rule allowing DNA records contained in the Police National Database be used to identify parentage or settle disputed parentage?

5. Can you introduce an amnesty for unrecoverable NRP's with three or more years inactivity and unrecoverable arrears to return to the legitimate economy in return for cancellation of arrears with immunity from prosecution and penalty. The CSA has created a culture where NRPs have joined the hidden economy, become permanently unemployed or left the UK for friendlier jurisdictions. They leave behind a multi-billion CSA debt mountain having no prospect of ever being collected and ensures those working the hidden economy or claiming benefits remain so for as long as a liability exists. This is also costing the government further uncountable billions in lost tax revenues and losses for local authorities in lost council tax income.



Making Child Support Fairer

1. Currently PWCs can claim child support to improve their quality of life and there is no correlation between a working parents income and the actual cost of bringing up children. The government official position on a childs actual financial needs is represented by Child tax credits. Therefore, can child maintenance liabilities be linked to the actual needs of the child?

2. Can new legislation allow NRP a working income that is significantly greater than he would otherwise receive if he claims benefits?

3. Can CSA caseworkers be trained to use actual evidence and not rely on PWC hearsay when making a decision that will require an NRP to makeover a greater money transfer than he would otherwise make?

4. Can you Repeal Section 33(4) of the Child Support Act 1991 and allow courts to order the CSA to comply with regulations if a liability amount is wrong?

5. Can you introduce a rule that CSA liability is not disregarded when calculating an NRPs net income when he claims a prescribed benefit or a concession (e.g prescriptions)? All other statutory liabilities (e.g. tax) are counted when calculating his net income. Benefits assumes the NRP has enough money to support himself, but this is not true because he is supporting his children (and his ex paertner) as will by way of statutory child maintenance.

6. Can you introduce fraud prevention and deterrent into child support claims regulations in-keeping with claiming prescribed benefits? Introduce a rule the PWC and CSA caseworkers to have equal criminal liability as the NRP for false representation and for failure to disclose/concealment of information or evidence under the 2006 Fraud Act. The current rules only serve to encourage PWCs and caseworkers to obtain money unlawfully knowing they have immunity from criminal prosecution.

7. Can you introduce a rule that childrens tax credits are claimable against the NRPs income and paid to the PWC? Its currently unavailable to parents not living with their children and the NRPs income is taxed twice. The state makes a great deal of money from a working NRP and currently does not give him (or the PWC) any tax credit to reflect this.

8. Can you introduce a fairer compensation and damages for CSA error, negligence and misfeasance and award the sum of actual and physical losses incurred? - Currently its according to prescribed tokenary amounts.

9. Can you enable the availability of Judicial Review to all parties irrespective of their financial means? There is no point in having it if its not available.

10. Can you extend legal aid and access to free legal advice to NRPs on an equal basis as PWCs and the CSA.

11. Can you introduce a rule that places the burden of proof with the accuser and not with the accused when a person is deemed liable for maintenance and is required to finance a DNA test? Limited financial means to fund DNA test can result in a false liability being imposed. E.g. the Robinson case

12. Can you train CSA staff to give the same level of advice to NRPs on saving money as it currently does to PWCs on obtaining money on an non sex discriminatory basis?

13. Can you introduce a new rule the NRP does not have to comply with any child maintenance regulation if the CSA doesnt.

14. Can you introduce a new rule that requires the CSA or a Tribunal to explain a decision quoting regulations and evidence they relied upon, or allow the NRP to disregard that decision until that explanation is made?

15. Can you change taxation regulations so PWC pays income tax on income and not the NRP? It makes sense because it is the PWCs income and currently the PWC claims tax credits.

16. Can you amend Section 33 of the Child Support Act so it is compatible with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and current council tax enforcement legislation. Insert between (2) and (3). - (3) before an application for a liability order the Agency shall serve on the person against whom the application is to be made a notice in respect of an amount at any time after it has become due

17. Can you train CSA staff on the meaning of Primary legislation and secondary legislation? Currently the CSA is using secondary legislation to rebuke an Act of Parliament which in any event predates the CSA without first repealing it namely Section 2 of the Limitation Act 1980.

18. Can we have the PWC's ability to contribute towards child maintenance be taken into consideration before setting a maintenance liability against an NRP?