Company director playing the system

AnnieB61

My ex has his own company, and declared a gross income to the CSA of around a quarter of what he had been earning for the previous 5 years or so - but my request for a variation seems to be going nowhere fast.

He has admitted to his kids that he's paying dividends to both himself and his gf - smugly stating that legally he's doing nothing wrong. He has also bragged that together they have a gross income of around £1000 per day - which I can easily believe, as he was charging a daily rate of £750 when I was still involved with the company.

They bought a new house earlier this year (costing nearly half a million!) - yet she still owns her old one too, and money still seems to be no object to them. His own kids' faces are being well and truly rubbed in the proverbial - of which they have plenty, from all their horses! lol!

To add insult to injury, he pays late every month, refuses to set up a direct debit, and now seems to be paying whatever suits him at the time! (His last payment should have been paid in full 3 weeks ago, but we're still £50 short!)

I'm sure I know the answer to this already - but is there NOTHING we can do? He doesn't even bother trying to hide his wealth, as he believes he's untouchable - and is doing nothing wrong! He's always been an arrogant and narcissistic little control freak - and stupid as this sounds, the fact he keeps getting away with it riles us more than the fact we're living on the breadline whilst he can afford whatever he wants in life - telling the kids that "He earns it, it's his money, and he can spend it how he likes!"

:mad:

FBaby

How much is he paying?

scousefowler

yes theres plenty you can do. even if he is taking a basic salary, the dividends are treated as income, so any tax return will show this. get on to your MP, and the csa. gather some information such as company accounts, a list of his directorships, information of his property ownership and send it up to the CSA. write them a letter detailing his wealth, and send one to your MP as well.

mania112

AnnieB61 wrote: »

"He earns it, it's his money, and he can spend it how he likes!"

Do you disagree with this statement?

I don't, I think it's spot on.

If he doesn't want to pay for his kids, he shouldn't. But that is a moral issue that he needs to cope with.

I'm interested to learn how much he does pay, and why you think that's not enough?

kevin137

You also need to be aware that the maximum NET income the CSA can use is £2000 per week. SO if he earns more than that, then you have no hope through the CSA, even a variation will not take this into account...

So if his declared income is already above that, then you are grasping at straws and you will get no more, if it is well below that, then claim, but you need to chase it and prove it, although they will backdate to when you claimed this is it can be proved...

Mummich

I am having the same problem with my child's father who is a director. hE had a very good income with a salary and dividends. Last year he said he doesn't have that income now and has reduced his salary by £1800 per month. Even the amount he has reduced it by is more than my total income from wage and top up benefit. He just stopped paying his maintenance and 8 months ago and also stopped seeing his child. I didn't want to push him for maintenance as felt I was pushing him to like his child!
I've decided to contact child support now so leaving it with them. I don't have much faith in the system as its there to protect the wealthy but have no other option. I know all his accounts have been changed to wrongly reflect a poor salary! It's so annoying that 1, a man can just walk away from any responsibility of love of his child and 2, how he can officially get away with it and always have the right of access to his child. Mind boggling !

FBaby

mania112 wrote: »

Do you disagree with this statement?

I don't, I think it's spot on.

If he doesn't want to pay for his kids, he shouldn't. But that is a moral issue that he needs to cope with.

I'm interested to learn how much he does pay, and why you think that's not enough?

I think it very much depends on the amount actually paid. I really do feel for nrps who find themselves with such a high maintenance payment that there is no way it can all be spent on the kids only or even it is, it could possibly go against their principle of throwing money at their kids and make them spoilt kids. Earning a lot doesn't mean you forcibly want to treat your kids to every luxury in the book.

At the same time, it is not a secret that many director make sure that they only pay the absolute minimum to ease their conscience so that they can say they pay towards their kids when it doesn't even come close to paying 50% of an average child lifestyle just because they are on a mission to insure that their ex doesn't see a penny for herself

clearingout

Where in the rule books does it say that a high level of maintenance will automatically be 'thrown at' the kids in order for them to have luxuries or for the PWC to be able to 'spoil' the children? Most PWC I know are perfectly capable of saving for the unexpected and then their children's futures if they find themselves in the very fortunate position of having more money than they need.

Whether you like it or not, mania, an NRP has a legal obligation to support their children to a minimum percentage of their earnings as defined by the Law. Following that deduction, an NRP is of course at liberty to do whatever they want with the rest of the money they have earned. If they want to pay less, then they will need to discuss with the PWC and be prepared for the CSA to enter their lives if no agreement can be reached.

mania112

clearingout wrote: »

Whether you like it or not, mania, an NRP has a legal obligation to support their children to a minimum percentage of their earnings as defined by the Law. Following that deduction, an NRP is of course at liberty to do whatever they want with the rest of the money they have earned. If they want to pay less, then they will need to discuss with the PWC and be prepared for the CSA to enter their lives if no agreement can be reached.

Like it or not, the law has been poorly made. You could argue it's against human rights law to force someone to pay.

However, my point is that the onus needs to be on the NRP to pay what he/she sees as fair.

That liberty is sort of handed to an NRP who is self-employed.

So in this case, i'm interested to hear what the amounts are the NRP is paying, before any judgement is made on either party.

It is just as likely that the NRP is paying a decent sum and the PWC is bitter about the break-up and/or attitude of the NRP

clearingout

and the rights of a child? to be supported, loved, respected, put first?

No adult should have such control over the life of another adult and their children to the extent that they be permitted to pay what they consider 'fair'. Very few would pay on that basis, claiming that the welfare state would pick up the tab and move on into new relationships and have yet more children they ultimately have no intention of supporting.

Bluemeanie_2

You should have a legal obligation to support your child. Saying pay what you think is "fair" is a bit silly and would see loads of people not paying when it suited.

I have issues with certain CSA rules etc being what I would consider "unfair" (in my opinion) but your suggestion just does not seem feasible.

Only thing is Clearingout, the welfare state does still pick up the tab. You know yourself that CSA is not counted when calculating income for purpose of working out benefit entitlement.