nil assessment for years

kevin137

Reading back through the previous posts of the OP, i don't think that she is a big earner, so that does not equate with the OP being able to support her husband financially, only 3 years ago she was complaining about her sons having to pay rent, so i am guessing subsidised housing as well as the WTC that was being paid would be lost...

On that basis, i would think rightly or wrongly, that this is not about being a stay at home dad, it is about using the benefits system to there advantage...!!!

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2221377

FBaby

I totally agree with Kevin. A nrp HAS a responsibility towards all his children. If he lose his job and his child from a previous relationship has to do without because there is NO choice, then that's fair enough, but to CHOOSE not to work when they could is just avoidance.

I don't have an issue with a man becoming SAHF for his new family if it does make sense in that the family is better off with the mum working. However, in that case, they need to factor in what he would be paying if they hadn't make that choice. It is money due, whether it comes out of his or her salary when they come to this arrangement should be irrelevant.

It makes me so cross to hear nrps giving up their job to become SAHF when it is obvious they do so because they are better off doing so when no maintenance has to be paid. There have been obvious such cases here, with the nrp having 2 or 3 more children, yet not contributing a penny towards his previous children.

In the case of the OP, they are clearly been paying, which would then be fine. It's pity that they seem to have done so not because it was the morally right thing to do but because they didn't realise they didn't need to

kevin137

I don't actually think that she pays anything, it is probably deducted form benefits, and the more i read about this despicable poster, the more i think that this is the reason why people should not be allowed to have children when living on benefits...!!!

I don't pay tax in the UK as i don't live there anymore, but this is a prime example of what is wrong with the system...!!!

onetomany

dont feed the troll shes made it clear what she thinks in pervoius posts

jacklink

i wish you all well, take care and god bless

jacklink

...........

galangm8

jacklink wrote: »

for years and years when hubby been on benefits hes received no money at all, this is probably due to not enough contributions paid and me earning too much.

according to the csa (somewhere in there regulations) if someone receives nil amount of money then nil amount is due, how far does the nil amount of money go back? as iv been paying for years with him NIL ASSESMENT ?

thankyou x

Someone? Do you mean NRP?...if you do it's right back to CSA1 (old rules) as NRPP is included.

If you're the NRPP - it's right back to that loving night you agreed to cohabit with NRP and accepted the responsibility to love and help provide for him and his baggage (even though you will not have called it 'baggage' then).

jacklink

.......... take care

thank you x

kelloggs36

jacklink wrote: »

for years and years when hubby been on benefits hes received no money at all, this is probably due to not enough contributions paid and me earning too much.

according to the csa (somewhere in there regulations) if someone receives nil amount of money then nil amount is due, how far does the nil amount of money go back? as iv been paying for years with him NIL ASSESMENT ?

thankyou x

This has always been the case. However, it would depend on the timing of WHEN his income dropped to nil in relation to the CSA case and the reason for it as they could have applied the rules which stated that if you gave up a job deliberately in order to avoid CSA payments (they would have looked at reasons given and made a decision against which he could have appealed), then the payments would remain the same as if he were in work - notional income.

If this is not the case, then why are you paying on behalf of your husband? Nice of you to do so, as morally it is the right thing for him to support his children regardless, but legally there is no need for you to do so.

Any payments you do make will be viewed as voluntary.

jacklink

.......... i wish you well take care