An MP’s guide to child maintenance

shoe*diva79

Own_My_Own wrote: »

Sorry if this has been asked before, but as the subject has popped up on the thread I thought I would ask.

If Child Maintenance is linked to Child Benefit, what happens to all the families that have just lost CB due to earnings ? How do they prove they are the PWC and/or the child is still in education in any CSA case.

Most will continue to receive CB and their tax code will be adjusted to recoup it.

DUTR

How do we view CMSB007 form?

HoneyNutLoop

I've posted some links before (I think in answer to some queries raised by Nicky3 iirc) to the laws where child benefit and maintenance are linked and in what scenarios. I will try to find it again later.

HoneyNutLoop

This is the thread:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/53721261#Comment_53721261

RedSky

HoneyNutLoop wrote: »

This is the thread:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/53721261#Comment_53721261

Kevin, does this reference from HoneyNutLoop satisfy you that legislation does actually exist to link CB with CM and clarify why the CSA state CB can be used to determine whether a child qualifies for maintenance?

kevin137

No, ICE clearly state time and time again that the legislation does not exist.

And to be fair, even the legislation in question

Period for which a person is to be treated as continuing to fall within section 55(1) of the Act
1A. Where a person (“P”) has ceased to fall within section 55(1) of the Act, P is to be treated as continuing to fall within that subsection for any period during which P is a person in respect of whom child benefit is payable.

However, this only relates to determining if a child remains eligible for maintenance. It has nothing to do with deciding who is the primary carer of a child, for example if the child moves from the parent with care to the non-resident parent's household, which is covered by separate regulations.

Does not clearly state that this is the case...

Add into that that the child must be in the UK, and that CB can be claimed while a child lives abroad, and you can see just how the legislation or lack off, doesn't add up...

And to make it clearer as i see it...

What that actually says, is that a child be eligible, not that it is eligible so now try to show me that CB is payable so CSA must be payable eligible and lawful are different. As we know many PWC continue to claim after and the CSA state this is right, yet it is overturned by ICE. If this was right then ICE would not be able to overturn...

RedSky

kevin137 wrote: »

No, ICE clearly state time and time again that the legislation does not exist..

Do you have the details of exctly when and why ICE have overturned the existence of this legislation?

I don't understand what you mean by this:

kevin137 wrote: »

What that actually says, is that a child be eligible, not that it is eligible so now try to show me that CB is payable so CSA must be payable eligible and lawful are different. As we know many PWC continue to claim after and the CSA state this is right, yet it is overturned by ICE. If this was right then ICE would not be able to overturn...

I read it as, if a child meets the criteria to be paid CB then that child is eligible to receive CM (assuming the reference to "fall within that subsection" is referring to CM eligibility).

As far as I understand, the CSA do not award or assess eligibility for CB so the CSA can only assume HMRC have done this, therefore if CB is being paid then CM is due. If CB is being claimed fraudulently then HMRC have to investigate and make judgement before the CSA can reassess CM eligibility.

kevin137

You read it the right way, but ICE have overturned lots of case, and they have been reported on here a few times as well.

But the whole point is, that while CB is payable, that does NOT mean that you are eligible for CSA, so the legislation quoted may well say that if it falls into that, but you don't have to be the PWC to claim either, but the CSA will assume that you are the PWC so that also contradicts what is right.

CB is payable, so the CSA must be right when they make a claim from what the legislation says, yet i can think of at least one instance where they would be wrong... And the child is not resident, but if CB is payable then CSA must be claimable, yet there own paperwork says that the child must be resident in the UK, so that is the easiest contradiction in there legislation...

And as ICE seems to be the ruling body on all that is right with regards to the legislation if they say there is none there must be none surely...???

And as pointed out, CB does not have to be claimed or cannot be claimed in some cases... And someone else pointed out it WOULD be claimed but then recovered as tax... Really, not everyone wants to do that if they are not eligible they just will not claim it... Far simpler is it not, and no forms to fill in or remember... So it again contradicts itself as then you would not be eligible...

kevin137

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/56543803#Comment_56543803

also the legislation that says it does not have to be the case...

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2001/155/regulation/8/made

HoneyNutLoop

Kevin,
You said there is no legislation that links child maintenance to child benefit, but there is. Does it cover every scenario? Of course not. It is in the law about whether or not a "child" remains eligible for maintenance. I.e that recurrent question of my son/daughter is 17/18/19 do I still have to pay maintenance? Answer yes, if they are still in full-time non-advanced education as defined by child support law or if child benefit remains in payment for them. The law I quoted before is the law that governs that answer.

The question of who is treated as the PWC or NRP or issues of jurisdiction is covered under different bits of child support law. I believe I quoted some more law about those issues later on in the thread I linked to above.