Ex has requested maintenance in cash

anh1904

Can anyone advise on what I should get by way of receipts to protect myself from any future claim that it was unpaid?

There's not long to go now, so I don't have a major problem in principle, but the last thing any of us need is to pay twice if someone tries to subsequently claim we never paid in the first place.

I have never missed a single payment, just for the record.

CAN1976

Why do they need cash rather than you performing a bank transfer or something? If you accommodate you are right to be thinking about receipts!

jetta_wales

Do be careful, is there really any good reason for this request? How do you currently pay?

slkh

I would go with the bank transfer option! It is effectively the same as giving cash as it arrive's in their bank instantly ( 9 times out of 10) and they can then draw it straight away, also giving you a solid receipt that you have paid them! If they disagree to this then alarm bells should ring as why??

Mojisola

slkh wrote: »

I would go with the bank transfer option! It is effectively the same as giving cash as it arrive's in their bank instantly ( 9 times out of 10) and they can then draw it straight away, also giving you a solid receipt that you have paid them! If they disagree to this then alarm bells should ring as why??

I think that you should also get a signed agreement that the payments are for child support.

The CSA has, in the past, refused to accept that payments paid by a cheque were for child support because the PWC claimed they were just gifts or money for extras for the children.

Strapped

anh1904 wrote: »

Can anyone advise on what I should get by way of receipts to protect myself from any future claim that it was unpaid?

There's not long to go now, so I don't have a major problem in principle, but the last thing any of us need is to pay twice if someone tries to subsequently claim we never paid in the first place.

I have never missed a single payment, just for the record.

:rotfl:Don't do it mate! (OH has BTDT and got the overdraft to prove it).

Kira000

I agree. Big alarm bells. Even if your ex doesnt want to do it to sc*ew you over, then they are probably trying to pull a fast one on the state with tax credits/benefits etc, which they may hope to keep at the same levels by pretending you don't pay. This is what my ex's ex, (IYSWIM!) tried on my ex, under the counter payments from him, so she could claim max benefits. Problem was the benefits people then started asking why he wasnt paying, and the CSA came after him for money he had already paid.
Be smart, be safe and get it all transferred with a clear "support" name on the transfer to show on your and her statements.

SPANIEL36

go onto the child maintenance options website and you can print off your own private agreement that both you and ex sign and which can be used if CSA get involved, my partners ex wanted cash but he refused saying he wanted proof of payments made, he used a cheque each month as she wouldnt give account details for standing order. IMO i think standing order is much safer as you have a trail of payments made

SPANIEL36

Kira000, i may be mistaken but i dont think maintenance payments affect benefits anymore, i know they used to let you keep the first £20 but i think its changed

jetta_wales

Do tac credits still class it as income?

clearingout

maintenance is not income either for benefits or tax credits purposes, no. So there is no longer any 'good' reason for a PWC to ask for cash payments. It may be that the PWC in this case doesn't understand that (many people assume it's classed as income and if her circumstances have recently changed and she's getting information from 'helpful' friends, that could explain it).

If you dig around this forum a bit, you will see there are many NRP's who have been stung twice in this situation. I think you either say you'll only pay cash when the CSA case is closed (and you have this in writing from the CSA) or you continue to use the CSA. Having hung around here for some time now, it's not something I would personally risk - there seem to be way too many gaping holes in this situation which favour the PWC.