turn the tribunal back on her?

Fission

kinksfan wrote: »

good luck, is this a sly way of the PWC getting access to the financial situation of a NRP? Or is the confidentiality of NRP respected? does the tribunal say we have looked and we think it is fair or do they say to PWC we have looked and here is the situation this is how much he has spent of holidays, this is how much his partner earns etc - surely the PWC should just get result of investigation not the details..........

She will get a copy of everything. If not she wouldnt be able to tell how fair the tribunal decision was.

Honest_broker07

When I was able to prove to the CSa that my EX's lifestyle was incompatable with her "income from benefits"

Eg £2,000 holidays ( plus spending money )
Wide screen TV
All new carpets every 2 years
new beds every couple of years
house recently decorated top to bottom
All new doors and windows fitted

The answer I got was that her income was "as declared" and that I needed to support the children,
When I asked them to investigate how one child was working and they were still taking her into account they said she was "at College", and that it was my reponsibility to contact all the colleges in the area to get proof she wasn't attending.

Now I have my Daughter - what Do I get "she's on prescribed benefit" and as such it's upto the Benefits agency to decide if she can pay or not.

Would the responses be the same if it was a guy not paying ...

kelloggs36

your gender doesn't matter, your status does. There are plenty of PWCs unhappy because their ex's are supposedly on benefits and not paying, or they are working cash in hand and not paying - so it works both ways.

creampuff

literally nothing has been supplied (if it has we hav not seen it)

the CSA checked the assessment and said its ok, she appealed it was checked again they said it was ok, so she appealed again and eventually it went off to the tribunal.

i have photographic proof of her large TV, newly decorated house / home improvements, spendature on things which are wants not needs, even what her husband does for a living and the salary he earns - shame i can't use this on her as she claims benefits and has no income... except the cash in hand stuff.. which again i can't prove.

what annoys me, is we are doing everything by the book and she has the cheek to say we are living beyond our means... i'd love to turn t back on her so she also financially contrubutes to the children and not expect us to forever pay her share too.. :mad: Grrr!!

gratefulforhelp_2

Um...if the children live with her then she does contribute financially to the children?

mrsspendalot

creampuff wrote: »

literally nothing has been supplied (if it has we hav not seen it)

the CSA checked the assessment and said its ok, she appealed it was checked again they said it was ok, so she appealed again and eventually it went off to the tribunal.

i have photographic proof of her large TV, newly decorated house / home improvements, spendature on things which are wants not needs, even what her husband does for a living and the salary he earns - shame i can't use this on her as she claims benefits and has no income... except the cash in hand stuff.. which again i can't prove.

what annoys me, is we are doing everything by the book and she has the cheek to say we are living beyond our means... i'd love to turn t back on her so she also financially contrubutes to the children and not expect us to forever pay her share too.. :mad: Grrr!!

Whilst I appreciate (as an NRPP) that child maintenance issues, particularly through CSA, can be difficult and stressful, it does always annoy me when NRP/NRPP complain that PWCs don't contribute financially to the upkeep of their children.

Whatever the PWC has or has not bought, and however it was financed, is completely irrelevant to the maintenance the NRP is required to pay. PWCs can be millionaires and still be entitled to maintenance from the NRP. If her husband is working, then he is allowed to buy TVs etc. If they 'appear' to have a lower income than you would imagine it possible to purchase 'big ticket' items like huge TVs, then the chances are it is on credit from somewhere. If you think the PWC is fraudulently working and claiming benefits, report her for benefit fraud and let the DWP investigate her. You don't need to be able to prove it, just give them all the details you think you have about where she is working, working patterns etc.

To be fair, anyone can pay for TVs, foreign holidays, home improvements etc on credit cards, loans, overdrafts, and many people do. I could book us a holiday tomorrow and pay on a credit card very easily, but it doesn't mean that my husband (NRP) has a fabulous income that the PWC in his case should be getting access to. Likewise, it doesn't mean that I as PWC, am not contributing to the cost of my children, or that my NRP is paying me too much if I can afford holidays.

surreybased

Mrsspendalot,

In this case and in lots of NRPs situation they are contributing however the PWC will insist on greater payments and in this case has caused a tribunal.No wonder why the OP is angry. Can you imagine if a PWC (usually mum) was being brought to a tribunal to declare all their household details. Women would be demanding that the system was changed so that mums were protected from their controlling ex's.

I hear constant complaints that NRPs avoid paying but most NRPs are PAYE employees and can't defraud the CSA. I would love to see how this is possible..no PWC actually suggests how you can do it..we would all love to know. In our case the PWC suggests that DH lies about his income, it just so completely ridculous to suggest that his employers (the government) would be prepared to lie on his behalf.

The frustration that the OP has is that the PWC is complaining,and making provocative statements about the children being in poverty. I bet the children are not being sheltered from these comments!!

Why is it always one sided - NRPs have to declare every household expense yet a PWC doesn't even have to list the children's costs to determine the poverty level.
I think if a PWC is having issues why not have a sensible discussion with the NRP and talk about the costs, but that might actually involve the PWC being reasonable and involving the NRP usually the father.

I don't see why you are getting angry at the OP who is just frustrated with the NRP. Save your anger for the PWC who might be vindictive (and they do exist), or for the NRP who isn't contributing.

I am a PWC (but works with the NRP and we have no issues) and a NRPP who's ex refuses to work with DH (& her other ex husbands - pural) I've seen both sides and I know that a fair approach is the best outcome for the children.

mrsspendalot

surreybased wrote: »

I don't see why you are getting angry at the OP who is just frustrated with the NRP.

I have every sympathy with people on both sides who are having trouble with the CSA. I have just waited a year for my case to be sorted so I (as PWC) can receive payments, since my ex decided he was going to avoid paying for his children. I am also an NRPP, and even though my husband is currently on a nil assessment as he is a student, we have our own gripes with the system from that angle too.

My frustration was with the comment the OP made about wishing they could turn the tribunal back on the PWC so she would have to start and contribute financially to the children, so the NRP and NRPP wouldn't have to keep paying her share too. It simply isn't right to say that PWCs don't contribute financially to their children, regardless of how much or how little maintenance is paid by the NRP.

From my PWC side, my assessment is £39 a week from my ex, but if I wanted to pay for school dinners, for example (which I don't because I can't afford to), it would cost £30 a week for those alone .... so that would leave £9 a week from his maintenance towards any other child expenses I might incur. Therefore I will contribute far more towards my children financially each week than my ex does.

ETA: just for the record, I actually have every sympathy with the OP. Being dragged to a tribunal to lay out every penny you spend cannot be a nice experience. I really hope the tribunal goes well for the OP. I can completely understand the frustration the OP must be feeling about the accusations from the PWC, and it does make you angry. BUT suggesting that the PWC contributes nothing towards the cost of raising the children is also not fair either.

OP, if you are still around, seriously, all the best with your tribunal.

clearingout

the fact is, although a lot of us would like to think we know what's going on behind closed doors, we don't have a clue! I thought I knew my ex and his spending habits and what he likes and dislikes. Hell, I had no idea whatsover! The man is a complete and utter nutter! Was he always like that? Probably. Just kept it hidden whilst he wanted to be with me. Now he no longer wants to be with me, he has no need whatsoever to curb his spending because the money isn't in the bank. His life. His problem.

As for defrauding the CSA. It's certainly possible even if you are on PAYE. You can work two jobs and not declare the second to the CSA. You can do some consulting on a self-employed basis or cash in hand on the side. If you don't tell the CSA, they don't know about it. You can forget to tell them about your pay rise, or that you've changed jobs and are now earning £14k a year more than you were 2 years ago.....

So if the PWC who THINKS he/she knows what your income is, and knows on that income, it shouldn't be possible to have 3 new cars on the driveway alongside the brand spanking new caravan and the huge sparkling TV to be seen through the window when she pulls up to collect the kids, she's going to kick off, isn't she?!

kelloggs36

surreybased wrote: »

Mrsspendalot,

In this case and in lots of NRPs situation they are contributing however the PWC will insist on greater payments and in this case has caused a tribunal.No wonder why the OP is angry. Can you imagine if a PWC (usually mum) was being brought to a tribunal to declare all their household details. Women would be demanding that the system was changed so that mums were protected from their controlling ex's.

I hear constant complaints that NRPs avoid paying but most NRPs are PAYE employees and can't defraud the CSA. I would love to see how this is possible..no PWC actually suggests how you can do it..we would all love to know. In our case the PWC suggests that DH lies about his income, it just so completely ridculous to suggest that his employers (the government) would be prepared to lie on his behalf. You would be surprised at the number of cases where this DOES happen you know! There are lots of family businesses where the family cover up the true income to protect their member from paying more money out

The frustration that the OP has is that the PWC is complaining,and making provocative statements about the children being in poverty. I bet the children are not being sheltered from these comments!!

Why is it always one sided - NRPs have to declare every household expense yet a PWC doesn't even have to list the children's costs to determine the poverty level. Because the PWC is already paying for the upkeep of their children - they must be by the fact that they are living with their own children - either by earning their own money, getting benefits or living with a new partner who is therefore paying towards children who aren't theirs. If they suspect that the person who is the legal parent of their child is trying to get out of paying what they should be legally paying, then there must be some means of ensuring that they cannot lie and get away with it.
I think if a PWC is having issues why not have a sensible discussion with the NRP and talk about the costs, but that might actually involve the PWC being reasonable and involving the NRP usually the father. Lovely ideology, but reality is often a whole universe away - my ex refused to discuss anything with me - he didn't want to pay a single penny and tried every trick in the book to avoid paying. He got away with it for a while, but I had no option but to take him to a tribunal for lifestyle and I won because he lied and was caught out by refusing to provide details which, had his claims been true, he could easily have proved; because he was lying, he wouldn't provide the evidence. It was the only way I was going to get an assessment which was not nil. It was changed from nil to £76.37 per week

I don't see why you are getting angry at the OP who is just frustrated with the NRP. Save your anger for the PWC who might be vindictive (and they do exist), or for the NRP who isn't contributing. if he is contributing what he should be based on his true income then there will be nothing to worry about and can easily be proven. It is not easy to prove a lifestyle case - most get thrown out for lack of evidence. It isn't as simple as a PWC making a claim of a list of items the NRP has, the PWC has to prove that the NRP cannot live the claimed lifestyle on the declared income and can show how much they need in order to sustain it. If the NRP lives off credit, then the application will fail.

I am a PWC (but works with the NRP and we have no issues) and a NRPP who's ex refuses to work with DH (& her other ex husbands - pural) I've seen both sides and I know that a fair approach is the best outcome for the children.

When the other party won't cooperate in any way, how do you get a fair approach? You have to go to whatever lengths necessary to get to the truth - whether you win or lose.