Child support-Entitlement to contractual redundancy payment

HelpMePay

hepcat42 wrote: »

As I stated above, he ALREADY had accepted a job offer from another place. There was never any risk of him being out of work. The only reason he didn't hand in his notice was because the opportunity to claim voluntary redundancy came up and he was able to conceal the fact that he had accepted another job from his current employer. How delightful that you and I as the taxpayer are funding the payout from a job he was already leaving.

As far being grateful- sure, it's great, he does his bit financially. I get the impression that as a PWCs I'm supposed to be offering up a special round of applause for receiving the bare minimum toward his child's upkeep, a monthly sum which by the way doesn't (even on his new salary) cover her nursery fees per month. Nor will it pay for heating, lighting, home insurance, groceries, petrol, new shoes (for her) or my latest Mulberry handbag (or will I get a Chloe whatsit- gee, so hard to decide).

As far as some of the responses received here-clearly having the audacity to even DARE query things hit a nerve amongst some people. God save us from uppity wimmin, eh?

Thanks to everyone who did actually have something to contribute to the discussion without resorting to insults.

Are you working? that may go some way towards helping, especially if someone is already paying for the nursery.

Maybe the reason you are getting a strong reaction on here, from men and women, PWC and NRP, is that you seem to feel entitled to money, your ex has come to have, after your relationship simply because you are the primary carer for the child. If it is for the child then he could always make his own arrangement. If you could associate it with the child's needs in some way you may get more sympathy.

hepcat42

I am working, yes, hence the need to pay for the nursery. And I actually don't agree with what one person said about the bills I have regardless of whether I have a child or not. The car, for example. I never owned a car prior to single parenthood- but it's pretty much impossible to get the child to the only available nursery without some form of transport so it really wasn't an option not to have one.

My point was not that I should not bear my own expenses. Of course I should. My point is that what he pays toward our daughter doesn't leave me off the hook with no liabilities of my own, living the high life while he slaves away to provide.

I've never said I was entitled to anything as far as the VR. Not once. If you read my original question, I simply raised a query as to what my daughter might be entitled to receive. For some people, that seems to mean an immediate leap to the conclusion that I'm a greedy cow after a handbag or whatever.

I suppose what I was meant to do all along was sit back and patiently hope that my ex decides to consider his child's needs when it comes to the extra money he now has- for example, that it might be nice to put some aside for her to have the chance to go to a better school one day. Perhaps he will. I guess it's just a little hard to make that leap of faith when you're talking about somebody who walked out on his daughter when she was nine months old. But apparently he's now done enough by making the basic payments toward her upkeep and I should just accept that and be grateful for it. Cheers.

HelpMePay

I'm sorry for the strength of reaction you have received on here, but your last paragraph kind of explains it. Its is incredibly hard for an NRP or PWC to make decisions about maintenance etc. without considering their judgements, upset, disappointments etc. in the ex-partner. That's why it is often best to keep maintenance simple and try not to think about the rest, because it will always lead to upset.

As I said earlier, drop a hint if you have an opportunity, but he is still a parent and therefore has the privilege of making some decisions about his child's welfare, its just that you are responsible for day to day care.

If you are working then he doesn't need to pay for fuel, insurance, lighting and the other things you mention: rather he needs to pay for his share of your child's share of the costs. The rest of the child's share and your share is down to you.

AnxiousMum

If there are changes to your circumstances due to you being left a single mum, ie, now needing a car when you had no need for one when you were a couple, etc., then this should be dealt with as ancillary relief through your divorce. Child support is simply a deduction of a percentage of wages made for your daughter, anything other than that to help you get on your feet after a separation should be dealt with in the divorce proceeedings.

jjj1980

Just want to say firstly that the line "Redundancy money is a 'bribe' to make a worker stop turning up every morning to do a job which no longer exists." really made me chuckle. (sorry my quote button is not working)

I have to agree with some of the posters that he has done absolutely nothing wrong by lining up a new job ready to start after his redundancy. A lot of companies, my ex-employer included, actually help people being made redundant to look for other work, assist in writing cvs, giving help preparing for interviews and the fact of having a new job lined up doesn't take away the right to be paid the redudancy pay. If that was the case, there would have been a very unhappy few hundred people from my old employment!

As a PWC myself, putting myself into your position, I would never expect that any redundancy pay my ex received should be paid towards/saved for our child. If he chose to do that, then thats fine. As long as he was paying his agreed maintenance amount, then any extra would be at his choosing. My situation is different as my ex pays nothing, openly admits to not claiming JSA or rushing into work so he can keep avoiding paying and thinks I should be the only one supporting our child financially. This may be why I feel that getting just the maintenance should be sufficient but if you had a private agreement and he is sticking to it then I don't see that there is much you can do and it doesnt seem worth getting too hung up on.

PlayingHardball

Hello OP,
I haven't read all of the comments, but based on your original post can I suggest something?

If he has always paid an agreeable amount of child support and you believe he will continue to do the same, why not just ask him if you could sit down and talk about her future, with the view to putting aside a small portion of whatever his net is from the redundance that neither of you can touch but that she will when she reaches 18? I'm thinking 1500 - 3000K?

Just a thought. If I had an amicable ex - I would want to keep him amicable! Trust me, you don't want to end up with a hostile or non-compliant NRP

FBaby

it sounds to me like it's a control thing. You want the money to come to YOU so YOU can decide what to spend it on for your daughter. Your ex is liable to provide financial support for his daughter for her every day need. Whatever he is 'forced' to give, or choose to give as part of his redundancy will be extra to this. So why can't he be the one deciding how this can be spent on his daughter? You hint that you don't trust he will spend anything on her, well in spite of the fact that this is his choice since it is 'extra', don't you think that by arguing with him over this money is only likely to make him less likely to give anything? Most likely, if you'd left it alone, not expected to get anything out of it for YOU to decide how it should be spent on your daughter, it is very likely he might have suggested something. Sometimes fighting for what you think is your entitlement (for your daughter) is the best way not to get it.

mrsspendalot

hepcat42 wrote: »

As I stated above, he ALREADY had accepted a job offer from another place. There was never any risk of him being out of work. The only reason he didn't hand in his notice was because the opportunity to claim voluntary redundancy came up and he was able to conceal the fact that he had accepted another job from his current employer. How delightful that you and I as the taxpayer are funding the payout from a job he was already leaving.

As far being grateful- sure, it's great, he does his bit financially. I get the impression that as a PWCs I'm supposed to be offering up a special round of applause for receiving the bare minimum toward his child's upkeep, a monthly sum which by the way doesn't (even on his new salary) cover her nursery fees per month. Nor will it pay for heating, lighting, home insurance, groceries, petrol, new shoes (for her) or my latest Mulberry handbag (or will I get a Chloe whatsit- gee, so hard to decide).

I think you are missing the point - he could very well have been made redundant and not had another job to walk into. For this, he is very lucky in the current economic climate. There is a very real risk at the moment to pretty much everyone in the country to wake up one morning and suddenly find themselves out of work. I'm more than happy for my taxes to pay for redundancy payments for the poor sods who are losing their jobs at the moment. Just because he has found another job doesn't mean it will be secure from further redundancy. He is now starting new employment which will carry with it fewer employment rights than he probably had in his last job, because a lot of employment benefits and rights are linked to length of service. It's not nice having to start all over again. Neither is it nice being on the receiving end of someone losing their job when you have to then take a drop in income when the maintenance stops being paid until they find another job. That is why I said you were lucky he found another job, and I stand by that. Instead of thinking about the extra few £ you could be getting off his payment, think about how you would cope this month and next if you weren't even getting your regular maintenance payment.

In terms of his maintenance not covering the bare essentials - I think you will find it is not intended to cover the bare essentials - it is supposed to represent a contribution towards the cost of raising your child. You are expected to contribute the rest.

The bulk of the cost of raising the child falls to the PWC (normally mum) which is why the government allow the PWC to claim child benefit, child tax credits, help with childcare if they work etc. Wages plus all those benefits are intended to ensure that you as a family unit can cover the cost of all the 'bare essentials'. Maintenance received is an added extra to represent a contribution from the NRP (usually the dad). Without sounding rude, if you cannot meet your bare essential living costs with or without the maintenance then you could probably do with jumping over to the debt free board or the money saving oldstyle board for some advice on lowering your outgoings. If there is one thing I have learned over the years within my own circumstances, it is never to rely on maintenance payments for your monthly budget as the payments can all too easily stop for a whole host of reasons, be it job loss, ill health, or sheer non-compliance. I have just had to cope for a whole year without a penny from my ex whilst he had fun avoiding the CSA, but my children haven't gone destitute because the government ensures I have enough money in my pocket to meet the 'bare essentials' every week on top of my wages.

Sorry if this comes across as harsh, but things really could be a lot worse.

kelloggs36

To the OP - have you tried to renegotiate with him, bearing his new job in mind? It may be time to have another agreement drawn up so that you can be secure knowing what he will be paying. If you cost out all that you need for your daughter, and compare in terms of earnings, you can work out something which is fair - so that in future there is no need to do so again (unless his circumstances change for the worse). Don't forget to factor in all the costs involved, as you say, it does include petrol costs for transporting your daughter here there and everywhere, and the costs of your home etc (obviously proporitionately), but if you add it all up, it is quite frightening to see just how expensive children really are!

Blue_Horizon

Interesting readin, this post has stirred up a whole bunch of emotion....

Anyhow, back to the original question. I think the answer is that the CSA would use the definition of statutory redundancy pay, which depends on your age. Assuming the NRP is between 21 and 41 this is 1 week per month. Some companies pay a higher contractual amount, e.g. 1 month for each year. So it looks to me if around 75% of any amount could be determined to be "income" and therefore liable to the CSA rules.

Through bitter experience, the right and wrong of this situation doesn't matter, it's best to understand the rules (law) and check the the CSA folks do their jobs right !