Single or not?

fannyanna

I can see a financial benefit for a NRPP in claiming child maintenance from their partner. Take a NRP with two children (and two PWC’s) earning £300 per week net…..

The child maintenance liability for the two children would be £60 per week (with each PWC getting £30 per week).

If the NRPP had a child with the NRP this was reduce the child maintenance liability slightly to £51 (with the two PWC’s getting £25.50). As the NRP’s liability was only reduced by £9 the NRPP could look at it from the point of view that child 1 and child 2 are worth £25.50 and their child is only worth £9.

If the NRPP also claimed maintenance from the NRP the liability would then be £75. This split between the two PWC’s and the NRPP would be £25 each.

So the NRP would be paying out £50 to the two PWC’s rather than £51 thereby making a ver small saving.

In addition the NRPP would be receiving £25 which looks better than their partners maintenance liability only being reduced by £9.

I don’t think you can do that (or if you can I don’t think it’s morally right) but you can see a financial benefit from it!

fannyanna

fannyanna wrote: »

I can see a financial benefit for a NRPP in claiming child maintenance from their partner. Take a NRP with two children (and two PWC’s) earning £300 per week net…..

The child maintenance liability for the two children would be £60 per week (with each PWC getting £30 per week).

If the NRPP had a child with the NRP this was reduce the child maintenance liability slightly to £51 (with the two PWC’s getting £25.50). As the NRP’s liability was only reduced by £9 the NRPP could look at it from the point of view that child 1 and child 2 are worth £25.50 and their child is only worth £9.

If the NRPP also claimed maintenance from the NRP the liability would then be £75. This split between the two PWC’s and the NRPP would be £25 each.

So the NRP would be paying out £50 to the two PWC’s rather than £51 thereby making a ver small saving.

In addition the NRPP would be receiving £25 which looks better than their partners maintenance liability only being reduced by £9.

I don’t think you can do that (or if you can I don’t think it’s morally right) but you can see a financial benefit from it!

Actually I think I'm talking rot

kelloggs36

No, you are not! An NRP can manipulate the amount they pay to a PWC by claiming to be separated from a new partner, with whom they have at least one child - but they haven't really. That way, the old PWC gets less money and the 'new PWC' (who is still living with the NRP) theoretically gets money, but the NRP just pays out less overall - thus keeping more of their money to themselves and their new family.

Rustic100

FAO KarenX "its money direct from the father to the mother." just being very PC! its not always mothers who are the PWC. I had a role reversal, in CSA terms last year Not on the NHS I should add. So I am now the PWC, to one child who now lives with me, wanting the CSA to contact the former PWC but now the new NRP. For my other two children I am a longstanding NRP and have a private arrangement with the other PWC, and awaiting the CSAs assesment of the whole situation as they lost track 5 years ago but recently contacted me and now want to give me 5 years of arrears BUT not take into account my 5 years of the private arrangement , if you follow.
I want to tell them my private arrangement saved the taxpayer 40p in the £ collection money, but am hoping the new consultation and green paper will have a sense check!

Fission

Shroom82 wrote: »

It just seemed odd that there was nothing to say, for definite, that you had to actually be seperated from the father. I'd have thought in today's 'out for all I can get' culture, the agencies would make sure thingslike that were worded to make it clear.

It is clear. Section 3 of the child support act says who is an absent parent and who is a parent with care and section 4 says either of them can make an application.

DUTR

Shroom82 wrote: »

Just a query really...Can you claim CSA if you are still in a relationship with the father of your child?

Yes , as long as one parent is non resident (probably works out cheaper too)

Marisco

DUTR wrote: »

Yes , as long as one parent is non resident (probably works out cheaper too)

I can see how it would be financially beneficial for that to happen if both parents were claiming benefits, but cannot see how it would benefit anyone re CSA - apart from the cases sited i.e more than one PWC. All it would do is take money from dad to give to mam (or visa versa) but surely if they are still in a relationship, that would happen anyway?????

Unless they would get more WTC claiming singly, than they would as a couple. I know anything claimed as a couple tends to be less than two single claims, I don't know enough about WTC to know if this is viable.

Shroom82

I agree with the financial benefits that could be gained.
If the NRP was on CSA1, and then the 'new PWC' put a claim in, both cases would go on to CSA2, would they not? This could potentially save the NRP a lot of money! I could understand someone doing this, knowing the high payout that CSA1 can be. Also, like someone said, if the NRP now has another child, it seems that they are looked upon as a 2nd class child as they wouldn't be afforded the same financial support as the 1st?

DUTR

Marisco wrote: »

I can see how it would be financially beneficial for that to happen if both parents were claiming benefits, but cannot see how it would benefit anyone re CSA - apart from the cases sited i.e more than one PWC. All it would do is take money from dad to give to mam (or visa versa) but surely if they are still in a relationship, that would happen anyway?????

Unless they would get more WTC claiming singly, than they would as a couple. I know anything claimed as a couple tends to be less than two single claims, I don't know enough about WTC to know if this is viable.

Shroom82 wrote: »

I agree with the financial benefits that could be gained.
If the NRP was on CSA1, and then the 'new PWC' put a claim in, both cases would go on to CSA2, would they not? This could potentially save the NRP a lot of money! I could understand someone doing this, knowing the high payout that CSA1 can be. Also, like someone said, if the NRP now has another child, it seems that they are looked upon as a 2nd class child as they wouldn't be afforded the same financial support as the 1st?

I meant as an NRP myself the amount I pay the CSA is less than when I was in contact with DC, and that was when petrol was less than 70p/litre, the NRp can just use the 15/20/25% quota for spend and stop at that without having to feel 'guilty' :rotfl: