Putting 90% of wages in pension to avoid CSA?

buel

Hi,
A friend of mine claims he can drastically reduce the amount of child maintenance he has to pay for his 3 children by a 'masterplan' of paying in around 90% of his wages into a private pension and claimed this was then 'protected income'. He is doing this as he is doing a lot of overtime so his wages are more than they have ever been.
Surely it's not that simple??

HappyMJ

buel wrote: »

Hi,
A friend of mine claims he can drastically reduce the amount of child maintenance he has to pay for his 3 children by a 'masterplan' of paying in around 90% of his wages into a private pension and claimed this was then 'protected income'. He is doing this as he is doing a lot of overtime so his wages are more than they have ever been.
Surely it's not that simple??

Well...maybe...but how is he goingto survive? Does he have a lot of cash? Why does he want to?

Hmm71

It is that simple but the PWC could apply for a variation on the grounds that the NRP is deliberately diverting income in order to avoid paying maintenance; so he might not get away with it.

wannabehermit

buel wrote: »

Hi,
A friend of mine claims he can drastically reduce the amount of child maintenance he has to pay for his 3 children by a 'masterplan' of paying in around 90% of his wages into a private pension and claimed this was then 'protected income'. He is doing this as he is doing a lot of overtime so his wages are more than they have ever been.
Surely it's not that simple??

Why would he not want to provide for his children?

buel

Well i don't know why he doesn't want to pay for his children.
He is not rich by any means but his plan is only to keep up this technique for a limited period (whilst he is being assessed)?
Surely this technique cant 'fool' the CSA?

shegirl

What a ****!

Why are there parents out there who do these things to avoid providing for their kids properly?

He may not get away with it.And if he does all the PWC has to do is request reassessment and I hope she does!

shegirl

buel wrote: »

Well i don't know why he doesn't want to pay for his children.
He is not rich by any means but his plan is only to keep up this technique for a limited period (whilst he is being assessed)?
Surely this technique cant 'fool' the CSA?

While it can be done (although as stated pwc could use the fact he's doing it intentionally to reduce amount) I can't see the CSA believing he constantly pays 90% of his pay into a pension,for obvious reasons!So,even if he got away with it for a while,somewhere along the line it would change.

clearingout

I suspect he would also run the 'backdating' risk - that they would decide he had been hiding his income and give the PWC the benefit of the doubt and backdate his payment. Huge arrears, potentially, court action, bailiffs....

as to why anyone wouldn't want to pay for their children shegirl, what are we all doing on this forum?!!!

shegirl

clearingout wrote: »

I suspect he would also run the 'backdating' risk - that they would decide he had been hiding his income and give the PWC the benefit of the doubt and backdate his payment. Huge arrears, potentially, court action, bailiffs....

as to why anyone wouldn't want to pay for their children shegirl, what are we all doing on this forum?!!!

True!:rotfl: Never fails to amaze me though,just how many try to shirk or reduce their responsibility!

WYSPECIAL

Actually its perfectly legal and doesn't need to fool the CSA. He may be questioned as to how he is supporting himself and they may try to apply a variation for diversion of income but if he appeals he will win a tribunal.

If he then changes the amount he is under no obligation to report the change of circumstances unless asked. If his ex asks for a review he can then increase his contribututions again and ask for a review himself which they will legally be obliged to carry out.

One of the flaws in the system i'm afraid and if he wants he could actually up it to 100% up to a max of £50k per annum.

It's affording to live on whats left that prevents most people doing this.

Ellejmorgan

shegirl wrote: »

True!:rotfl: Never fails to amaze me though,just how many try to shirk or reduce their responsibility!

My ex is the same, he doesn't even tell me when he's working...
He gives me £10 per week for 2 kids one of which is 5 months old, with that and the £2.50 for my 11 year old i'm laughing ain't I..