Fruadulent claim!!!

mrsspendalot

I don't really see it as any different to trying to gather evidence for variation based on lifestyle inconsistent with earnings. The system is such that sometimes you have to gather evidence to prove your case. It's a shame that the OP is having to consider any of the advice being given in order to get fair payments for the children.

I'm sure I've read on other threads people giving NRPs advice about recording contact they have with their children by way of dated photos, calendars, etc. to prove that they have overnight contact when PWCs are denying it in an attempt to not have their maintenance reduced due to shared care. Why is this case any different?

tattycath

because it is being suggested that the child gathers evidence!!!

HelpMePay

mrsspendalot wrote: »

I don't really see it as any different to trying to gather evidence for variation based on lifestyle inconsistent with earnings. The system is such that sometimes you have to gather evidence to prove your case. It's a shame that the OP is having to consider any of the advice being given in order to get fair payments for the children.

I'm sure I've read on other threads people giving NRPs advice about recording contact they have with their children by way of dated photos, calendars, etc. to prove that they have overnight contact when PWCs are denying it in an attempt to not have their maintenance reduced due to shared care. Why is this case any different?

Because its deliberately dragging the child into the evidence gathering, asking them to take sides and undermining their view of the other parent for starters.

I have no problem with people gathering information, even when discretely obtained from the kids, but what was suggested was way too much.

infant2801

kelloggs36 wrote: »

writing a diary is not an issue and can be very useful - I really don't see the problem with gathering evidence. I guess that is why I won my tribunal hearing and got my ex to pay, when he wanted to lie and cheat his way out of taking responsibility for a child whom we BOTH had responsibility for. My sense of justice was too strong.

Having a child write a diary of their visit with their mum or dad, how pathetic! To put a child on the spot, not to mention the mental state/safety of the child if actually caught doing such.

You are being given misleading information, false hopes.

Official departments, including government, only base there case on facts.

If your child comes home with dozen photo's showing dad sleeps there everynight except Thursday, blah, blah, it doesn't mean a thing if he can prove he has a separate/own address i.e. mortgage, rent/council tax for that address, thats what it is based on.

After all he has got a child there so could be staying cause she's ill, staying cause she's crying for daddy...a million reasons.....it does not mean he 'lives' there.




Take it from an expert

Strapped

kelloggs36 wrote: »

I love the way that the fact that the NRP is lying to avoid paying is ignored and encouraged - sorry, but I believe in justice and truth. The person responsible for this is the NRP and nobody else - a child can give lots of info without being quizzed - casual chat about their weekend and who was around, it doesn't mean they have to be put under the spotlight!

I knew your reply would involve two wrongs = 1 right. Nice try at deflection there. The actions you suggest are still totally despicable.

Also, if you believe in justice, I'm not sure how that fits with apparently supporting a system that has two sets of rules to calculate often very different amounts of child maintenance!

mrsspendalot

tattycath wrote: »

because it is being suggested that the child gathers evidence!!!

HelpMePay wrote: »

Because its deliberately dragging the child into the evidence gathering, asking them to take sides and undermining their view of the other parent for starters.

I have no problem with people gathering information, even when discretely obtained from the kids, but what was suggested was way too much.

I take your point - it's not something I would ask my children to do

PreludeForTimeFeelers

Shermanator123 - has there been any development on the case?

justaquickone

kelloggs36 wrote: »

Tell that to the utilities when they are cut off - I don't condone fraud in any way, and would be more than happy for my child to tell me who was living at the house they were staying at - afterall, as their parent, I would have the right to know this in the best interests of my children.

Kelloggs why would the Utilities be cut off because the NRP is paying under CS2 rather than CS1. What a bizarre thing to say

tattycath

justaquickone wrote: »

Kelloggs why would the Utilities be cut off because the NRP is paying under CS2 rather than CS1. What a bizarre thing to say

maybe Kelloggs is aver dramatising or maybe inferring that the pwc won't be able to afford to pay the utilities. I've never known a pwc with young children to have their utilities cut off. Maybe pwc could up their income, re-cut their coat according to their cloth etc. nearly everyone suffers financial difficulties at some point but we don't all blame ex partners because we can't afford everything we would like do we.

justaquickone

The OP in effect has been receiving hugely inflated payments for the last 8 years because CS1 was never transferred over to CS2 as it should have been (over a third more than CS2 according to the OP). To suggest her utilities would be cut off when she is receiving what she really have been receiving all along (if the CSA had done what they should have done), is plain ridiculous. In fact the reduction will be phased and as far as I'm aware, she can only receive £5 pw less each year until the new amount is reached. So basically £20 per month worse off this year, etc. Really don't understand what all the fuss is about. By the time the five years is out then presumably the newer system will be in place anyway