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

CornishBloke29

claire111 wrote: »

That is because its the NRP income and not the PWC income.

I'm sorry I don't know what you mean...

Yes it is the NRP income. NRP income should be assessable for child support.

Personal injury compensation is just that, compensation. It is to re-imburse the injured person his costs and financial losses.

I think you should make enquiries about making a claim against the party at fault if you have financially lost out as a result of their negligence.

CornishBloke29

Orson_Cart wrote: »

I think Rustic meant the CSA overcharging the NRP by mistake then intentionally enforcing it knowing the money is not lawfully due.

I read somewhere that s2 of the 2006 fraud act deals with that.

Only an MP can ask the SFO to intervene to recover files & evidence, then launch an investigation.

DX2

CornishBloke29 wrote: »

Nothing stopping you putting your questions forward.

Oh I have just not via this thread.

claire111

CornishBloke29 wrote: »

Personal injury compensation is just that, compensation. It is to re-imburse the injured person his costs and financial losses.

I think you should make enquiries about making a claim against the party at fault if you have financially lost out as a result of their negligence.

It is to re-imburse the injured person his costs and financial losses.

Except that because of the CSA legislation the claimant ends up being financially better off for having had the accident because he doesn't have to pay CSA. That surely goes against the point of 'compensation' ?

When compensation is paid it is broken down very specifically into 'lost earnings', 'care and assistance', 'transport' etc etc.

I can't claim against the party at fault because I have no knowledge of who they are and no entitlement to know. I won't be notified when the settlement is made nor any detail of it.

The Compensation Recovery Unit (DWP) however, have a legal right to be notified of the amount and details of the settlement by the insurer before it is paid so that they can claw back any payments for social security benefits that the NRP may have claimed (invalidity benefit etc) and also so that they can claim back any medical costs that the NHS have incurred in treating the NRP (ambulance etc).

So, the Goverment gets to claw back their expenses, the NRP can be up to 25% better off in terms of earned income, but the children suffer....

Any advice ?

Marisco

But if the NRP has to pay CSA at the same rate as he was before the accident, how long do you think the compo would last? Surely it would depend on how bad the injuries were, and how long it's going to take him to get back to work. That compensation has to last until he is fit to get back to work, and may also entail using taxis if unable to drive because of injuries. I understand where you are coming from, but I think it's wrong to go after someones' compensation for injuries payment.

claire111

I'm not 'after' his compensation for his 'injury'.

I am maintaining that where he receives a sum of money that represents what he would have received had he worked, that a percentage of that should be made available to support the children - as if he had worked...

If he is unfit to return to work at the time of the settlement he will also be made an award of a sum of money for 'future loss of earnings' which will be equal to that which he would have 'earned' had he been able to work. I maintain that a percentage of this should also be made available to support his children. Currently it is not.

I do not feel that any of the money that he is given for 'pain and sufferring' etc is counted as income. That is his and rightly so.

My youngest was 3 years old at the time of the accident. It is possible that the NRP may never work in his usual job ever again, however he is likely to receive an income until retirement age, equal to that which he would have received had the accident not happened, but not have to support his children out of this income.

From my children's point of view this is wrong on so many levels.

claire1234

proberly quite far fetched but something i was thinking of and wondering was . . .

if the government give child benefit as a amount for each child, then why dont they come up with a figure similar to this for NRP`s to pay,

for example a statatory amount for each child of £20 per week then to ensure they pay make sure there is a enforecment on the NRP`s bank account, wages or benefits to be automatically paid first as a priority to the children (well to the PWC)

if it was a set amount per child it would stop really confusing calculations and cases, also try to stop arrears and non payers.

just a rough simple idea!

Sidekick_2

claire111 wrote: »

I'm not 'after' his compensation for his 'injury'.

I am maintaining that where he receives a sum of money that represents what he would have received had he worked, that a percentage of that should be made available to support the children - as if he had worked...

If he is unfit to return to work at the time of the settlement he will also be made an award of a sum of money for 'future loss of earnings' which will be equal to that which he would have 'earned' had he been able to work. I maintain that a percentage of this should also be made available to support his children. Currently it is not.

I do not feel that any of the money that he is given for 'pain and sufferring' etc is counted as income. That is his and rightly so.

My youngest was 3 years old at the time of the accident. It is possible that the NRP may never work in his usual job ever again, however he is likely to receive an income until retirement age, equal to that which he would have received had the accident not happened, but not have to support his children out of this income.

From my children's point of view this is wrong on so many levels.

I would presume that you claim child support via the csa.

Have you tried talking to the NRP about setting up a private agreement?

Csa law states that a NRP should pay a percentage of their earnings as child support.
Compensation for loss of earnings is simply by definition not earnings. The amount determined would be to take into account all losses incurred.

If the NRP is on benefits you would only be allowed to claim a small amount if anything.

The course of action should be to negotiate with the NRP for child support.

JSB43

These would be my two pence to put to Maria Miller.

Matt_Fry wrote: »

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?

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?

Much fairer system.

DX2

Still no reply then?