Everything put into new wifes name!

ejd_2

ask the csa for a 'variation' based on his excessive lifestyle

seven-day-weekend

Isn't it sad that he is attempting to get out of supporting his son?

I hope he sees sense soon, or that in some way is made to pay. It would be better for all concerned if he saw sense.

Wishing you well.

steam_2

As a helpline advisor I see many cases like yours every day and would advise that you ask for your case to be referred to criminal compliance as they can look into the transferring of assets from him to his new partner, as for the variation it is worth trying but if your case has been running this long it is a departure and trying to prove lifestyle inconsistent with income has been very difficult in the past.
I hope this helps will be happy too answer any more questions, but go for the criminal compliance referral.

kelloggs36

Lifestyle cases are difficult, but not impossible - I won my case and got my assessment upped from nil to 76.73 per week. Mind you, being an insider helps!

steam_2

Wow that is impressive, I have never heard of one that was succesful.

kelloggs36

I nearly didn't bother though. I am a Face to Face officer (until my career break, I'm due back next year if I have a job to go back to!!) My assessment was nil as his income was allegedly 140 per week, of which 118 was housing costs. Take away housing costs from 140 left him with 22 quid per week on which to eat (him, his wife who he said wasn't working and his 2 children living with him), pay all his household bills, run a car, run his mobile phone etc and the CSA said that it was entirely possible to do that on 22 quid per week. A colleague of mine urged me to appeal as it was the only way to get it looked at properly, so I did. To the Tribunal, I submitted a long letter explaining that he worked 7 days per week most weeks and provided evidence of what he was earning when he first qualified as a builder, which was double what he claimed to be earning now! Considering he is a builder and there is plenty of work, it is highly unlikely that in the last 15 years, his wages would have dropped that much. I also provided 100 job adverts from the jobcentre, advertising bricklaying/building jobs which proved that the average earnings were at least 200 quid per week MORE than he claimed to earn. Even taking into account expenses (and he didn't have many, he works on building sites and provides his own tools and labour, not materials) his claims did not add up. On top of that, he moved house, so I got details from the Land Registry for both his new house, which stated the price he paid for his house, and the old house, proving what he sold it for. His MEF details supplied as part of the appeal docs, stated what his outstanding mortgage was, so taking one away from the other, left over 100k required for a mortgage. He claimed that his wife wasn't working, yet he managed to secure a 100k mortgage on a declared income of 9k per year BEFORE TAX. The Tribunal directed him to supply his mortgage application as he denied it, but he refused. I rang his mortgage company and asked a general question 'if I earned 9k, would you loan me 100k for a mortgage?' to which the reply was 'no'. To which I then replied 'well, you did my ex husband'. The guy on the other end of the phone asked for his name and his address, which I gave and he just said 'it is over 100k and he has declared 4 times that to us'. I used this as evidence, even though technically the guy should not have told me. As my ex refused to supply contradictory evidence which was in his best interests to do, the Tribunal ruled that he had not declared his true earnings to the CSA. THey considered it impossible to live on 22 quid per week after housing costs and took other factors into consideration such as the long term construction boom and highly paid jobs available in his field, the fact that he had been doing it for a very long time meant that he was experienced and therefore could easily command such pay, the fact that he also failed to claim any tax credits even though on his declared earnings he would have got loads. THey said that there was no evidence that he had funded his lifestyle with credit cards or loans, and as he said his wife wasn't working, it wasn't supplied by her either. They increased his weekly income from 140 quid per week to about 400 quid per week.

Although I won the case, he has still failed to pay and is currently awaiting a new hearing date for Show Cause as he was under a suspended prison sentence for failing to pay. He turned up (after having been arrested) and told the Court that he would remortgage his house - there are 3 charging orders on it at the moment, with a fourth awaiting the liability order before they do it. I should know more at the end of April when the hearing is due, although there is no evidence that he has contacted the CSA. He must provide evidence in Court of the remortgage otherwise he goes down.

There is also an Order for Sale application pending. The CSA are currently preparing the case, so if he doesn't remortgage, they will hopefully get the money by forcing him to sell his house.

As I know what is required for the Lifestyle, with the help of my colleagues, I believe that is why I won. For the average PWC without the knowledge, I believe the system is so weighted against them as there is too much reliance on them providing evidence to prove what the NRP has/doesn't have. THe data protection act prevents much of what is required from being found out, so it allows NRPs to lie about their true circumstances. Things are changing with new powers being given to the Criminal Compliance team who can now approach the mortgage companies direct and ask for details which they couldn't do before, and they can get details from banks which they couldn't before either. Hope is on the horizon that NRPs are having less and less places to hide behind.

gypsyjanet

I just dont understand the reason and logic as to why an absent parent will go to such lengths in order to hide cash from someone and make their children suffer. Maybe the CSA should be given powers to compel a parent who refuses to co operate to go for councelling .
To me, I feel that much of what I have read about peoples experiences with one parent withholding money deliberately is nothing short of a form of child abuse.
It is so frustrating to be told that you are owed money and not be able to access it! well done to all those people who have persevered and won , I just hope I can keep going at it!!!

Sensemaya

Like so many others here I'm in the same predicament. The assessments ( my ex is self employed ) just don't add up.

Even if you "win"at a tribunal that is only half the battle. It still doesn't mean you will receive any payment.

I beleive the CSA was set up as a form of torture for ALL parents and their new partners involved in a relationship breakdown.

And who wins? The civil servants, of course. They need to be kept in a job, don't they?

kelloggs36

Yeah, but who wants a job where everybody hates you!!!! I used to be embarrassed if asked where I work!

Sensemaya

kelloggs36 wrote: »

Yeah, but who wants a job where everybody hates you!!!! I used to be embarrassed if asked where I work!

But you, Kelloggs, are different. This forum wouldn't be anything without you. Me and Mr GG come and go. You are always here to help. You deserve recognition.

I know some very nice civil servants, btw. I was speaking generally. The majority are crap.

:beer: