Foreign Employer

kevin137

I would say be very careful how you proceed...

REMO is claimable, and could be a whole heap more than the 15% you keep going on about, and remember 15% is the minimum you should be paying.

I don't know how swiss courts decide, but if you earn high they may make you pay a lot more...!!! Pointing your ex here may well persuade her that the 15% you pay is right, but 15% of what, she only has your word for the fact that it is 15%, and as i guess you don;t show her your payslips, she may have reason to doubt you, that i know nothing about, only you know the truth.

The problem is, is that she does have other alternatives, and regardless of where you are, if you are shown as being an employee in Switzerland, if remo paperwork is sent to a court and you do not respond you could get crucified... And with working on a boat, as you have already pointed out. You could be at sea for months...!!!

Just a look at it from a different side that you don;t seem to have considered...

Marisco

kevin137 wrote: »

I would say be very careful how you proceed...

REMO is claimable, and could be a whole heap more than the 15% you keep going on about, and remember 15% is the minimum you should be paying.

I don't know how swiss courts decide, but if you earn high they may make you pay a lot more...!!! Pointing your ex here may well persuade her that the 15% you pay is right, but 15% of what, she only has your word for the fact that it is 15%, and as i guess you don;t show her your payslips, she may have reason to doubt you, that i know nothing about, only you know the truth.

The problem is, is that she does have other alternatives, and regardless of where you are, if you are shown as being an employee in Switzerland, if remo paperwork is sent to a court and you do not respond you could get crucified... And with working on a boat, as you have already pointed out. You could be at sea for months...!!!

Just a look at it from a different side that you don;t seem to have considered...

Surely though Kevin, there must be some sort of dispensation for people like that? What about Royal Navy personnel who might be at sea for months, or those out in Afghanistan, or those who work in the back of beyond in somewhere like Africa?

My partner used to work a month on month off in some pretty remote places, so he had to write a letter to the CSA giving permission for me to deal with everything. What happens if someone hasn't got anyone to deal with things, there must be something in place to accommodate them surely?

kevin137

This is a court not the CSA. REMO will use a local court and they will do exactly what the CSA do, decide in his absence then he would have to argue it later, and then only if he is in time to appeal...!!!

It is just how it is, otherwise we could all claim this or that or whatever we want etc etc...

And if he is away at sea for months on end, then surely alternative arrangements should be made for important post etc...?

But that is not the issue, i was just saying it IS possible and guess what, the CSA may well say that they do not have jurisdiction if this ex applies, but they most certainly will tell her she can claim through REMO, so she will find out about it...!

Jamieplp007

http://www.marilynstowe.co.uk/2012/01/03/the-non-resident-nightmare-how-offshore-income-is-taken-into-account-for-child-support/

Jamieplp007

I think it's a case of having good representation if it goes to court and a lot of patience but that's her decision if she wants to go that far........

HoneyNutLoop

Jamieplp007 wrote: »

http://www.marilynstowe.co.uk/2012/01/03/the-non-resident-nightmare-how-offshore-income-is-taken-into-account-for-child-support/

You will note that the article was written in January 2012 about a decision made in August 2011. The link to legislation I attached previously is to regulations that were brought in from March 2012, which the explanatory memorandum explains was done to: "[...] amend existing regulations [...] to [..] remove a restriction on the Agency’s ability to take account of foreign earnings (i.e. where income is earned outside of the country but taxable here) for the 2003 scheme."

Obviously, of the people on this forum, only you know the specifics of your situation and if the new law will bring your earnings within the jurisdiction of the CSA or not. As others have said, that maybe should not be your biggest concern regarding what your PWC can do if she is in some way unhappy with your arrangement.

If you are abroad for more than half a year, you may not be considered as being habitually resident in the UK. If this was the determination reached by the CSA on receipt of an application, it would decide it did not have jurisdiction to accept the application.

All well and good, you might think, but as others have mentioned, that means your case would fall within the jurisdiction of the courts. And the usual issue of a court order only really being effective for one year, because the CSA could then legally take over, would not be in an issue in this scenario because that only applies when the CSA has jurisdiction. What the courts decide you can afford to pay, and what they count as income for you, could be wildly different then the CSA rules. It might go in your favour, then again, it might not.

You started by asking if the CSA take payments directly from your payroll as your employer is not from the UK. The answer is maybe, but maybe not, as you should be able to see from the legislation brought in from March 2012. However, your later queries seem to centre more on a power struggle between you and the PWC about who gets to dictate the payment terms and what recourse, or lack thereof, the PWC has if things don't go her way. With that concern, the answer is about more than just what the CSA can and can't do, as it is not the only body that governs and enforces child maintenance, and that is what I and some of the other posters are trying to point out to you.