We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum. This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are - or become - political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
We're aware that dates on the Forum are not currently showing correctly. Please bear with us while we get this fixed, and see Site feedback for updates.

Which Interest Rate on reimbursed DNA cost by CSA

13»

Comments

  • I put my responses to you various threads all in one post. For convenience here is the link:
    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/...=#post64113294
    I often use a tablet to post, so sometimes my posts will have random letters inserted, or entirely the wrong word if autocorrect is trying to wind me up. Hopefully you'll still know what I mean.
  • I put my responses to you various threads all in one post. For convenience here is the link:
    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/...=#post64113294

    Thank you Honeynutloop, your info is more helpful than the Caseworker.

    My Nrp did have the 2 month leeway for returning his form within 4 weeks on CSA1, but that was not when he paid of the lump on his mortgage.

    He never had a mortgage at first, mortgage free, he knew csa would be coming after him for CM therefore, took out a high one for high housing costs (half of his weekly income).

    Received his letter, as I did, advising of his weekly child maintenance assessment/obligation.

    He thought great that's her and the child out of the way.

    I noticed there was part of his income he must not have given details of, I informed the csa and they wrote to him for details (not a reassessment just to correct).

    He was obviously sweating, thinking he has instructed his bank/solicitor to pay the proceeds of another house sale to pay off most of his mortgage.

    He received his revised letter as I did, telling him the nEw increased amount but did not tell them that was not now the true information to assess him on.

    Honey as you are the expert, can I just ask:

    On csa1 do you know anything regarding a Nrp not being able to sell his property to increase his mortgage (for higher housing costs) within 9 months of the qualifying child's birth?

    Also when csa use half income as housing costs (not actual from mortgage statement), is that because the Nrp has refused to show proof/mortgage statement?

    You were correct on the interest rate for te DNA test, that's what they paid me, but other posters were saying 8%.

    Thank you for your help
  • Crellow4 wrote: »
    There is no legal requirement to report a reduced/increased housing cost and consequently no penalties for failing to do so. On CS1 the housing cost was calculated with regard to the balance, term and interest rate. The allowable housing cost was the required contractual payment - not what the NRP chose to pay. In the example where lump sum payments were made to reduce the capital sum, the housing cost allowed would have been reduced had the CSA been notified of the change. I really think you are going down a dead end with this - if he didn't tell CSA that his housing costs had changed and you didn't ask for a reassessment either then there is nothing which can now be done.

    Crellow


    I know already the rules on housing costs you have given but I have explained on Honeyloops post my actual situation.

    Thank you
  • I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. If an assessment was made, based on information provided, it will run until new information is provided. It will only be corrected (revised) if it can be proven that false information was provided at the time - for example if your ex provided evidence of a mortgage he did not have. If he paid his mortgage off immediately following an assessment but does not inform the agency there is nothing which can be done - unless you had notified them at the time.

    Housing costs on CS1 are restricted to half net income or £80 - whichever was higher unless the NRP had a dependant child in the household.

    There is no legislation to cover the scenario you pose re sale/increase in housing costs within 9 months of the child's birth.
  • JJWSJS8700
    JJWSJS8700 Posts: 238 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 100 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    edited 22 December 2013 pm31 1:01PM
    Crellow

    That's the point though the assessment wasn't made, it was in the process of being 'made'.
  • JJWSJS8700
    JJWSJS8700 Posts: 238 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 100 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    edited 22 December 2013 pm31 1:01PM
    Crellow

    Regarding housing costs, I know regarding half income or 80£...but it's not as straightforward as that.... Otherwise when I told csa he had missed100£ Pw from his income and then added to his income, they would have increased his housing costs for him but they didn't ... Unless you know something different. Why do you think they ask for proof, I think they ask for proof if over half income rule.
  • Evidence of housing costs is always requested - he would have been asked to provide an up to dare mortgage statement showing term, principal sum, interest rate etc. My guess is that when his income was increased by the £100, CSA failed to increase his housing allowance. Why are you so concerned with a change to housing costs which happened so long ago? If there was a change to any of the aspects affecting liability under CS1, between the evidence gathering and date of calculation. The assessment would not be revised unless one of the parties contacted the CSA within 28 days of the notification being issued. You are well outside of that period and indeed the absolute time limit of 28 days plus 12 months.
  • Crellow4 wrote: »
    Evidence of housing costs is always requested - he would have been asked to provide an up to dare mortgage statement showing term, principal sum, interest rate etc. My guess is that when his income was increased by the £100, CSA failed to increase his housing allowance. Why are you so concerned with a change to housing costs which happened so long ago? If there was a change to any of the aspects affecting liability under CS1, between the evidence gathering and date of calculation. The assessment would not be revised unless one of the parties contacted the CSA within 28 days of the notification being issued. You are well outside of that period and indeed the absolute time limit of 28 days plus 12 months.

    Why am I concerned about housing costs that happened so long ago? You ask...

    I am concerned because it is False Information a/my NRP gave to assess how much he was to pay for his child, on his only and very first assessment, for the following 5 years.

    I will ask once more. If he/any NRP must provide their mortgage statement, etc., as proof - when do they come to the 'half of weekly wage' for housing costs...I am genuinely intrigued...when they added the further 100£ pw to his weekly income, csa Did NOT increase his housing costs to reflect this, as you state they should have.

    That must mean I owe him five years of 100 exta housing costs... Approx 15 GBP x 60 months.

    It is not about what I informed within 28 days or he said within The 28 day timescale but about what he did not say that is causing the problem...withholding information.
    ?
    Do you understand now a Crellow?

    Thank you for replying and your help in sorting this matter.
  • Without full details I can only surmise which is why I've said it is possible that his housing costs should have been increased when his earnings were increased.
    The first step with housing costs is to establish how much the full contractual payment is - from mortgage statement. This is then subject to the £80 or half net income restriction.
    If he failed to notify that his housing costs had reduced or ceased there is nothing you can do about it now.
    I will not be making any further responses as I feel I am simply covering the same ground.
  • JJWSJS8700 wrote: »
    My Nrp did have the 2 month leeway for returning his form within 4 weeks on CSA1, but that was not when he paid of the lump on his mortgage.

    He never had a mortgage at first, mortgage free, he knew csa would be coming after him for CM therefore, took out a high one for high housing costs (half of his weekly income).

    Received his letter, as I did, advising of his weekly child maintenance assessment/obligation.

    He thought great that's her and the child out of the way.

    I noticed there was part of his income he must not have given details of, I informed the csa and they wrote to him for details (not a reassessment just to correct).

    He was obviously sweating, thinking he has instructed his bank/solicitor to pay the proceeds of another house sale to pay off most of his mortgage.

    He received his revised letter as I did, telling him the nEw increased amount but did not tell them that was not now the true information to assess him on.

    So using the same example dates from before:
    01/07/1994 - would have been the initial effective date if didn't qualify for deferment. NRP paying full mortgage. Completes forms and returns within 4 weeks. As per Crellow's response would have had to provide evidence of the original loan amount, the amount outstanding, the monthly payments and applicable interest rate.

    26/08/1994 deferred initial effective date as forms returned within 4 weeks. NRP still paying mortgage at full rate, so no change in housing costs.

    Say 01/10/1994 letters sent to both of you confirming what maintenance assessment is from 26/08/1994.

    Say you dispute the assessment in 01/10/1994 because the income is wrong so on 10/10/1994 they write to you both again with the corrected maintenance assessment figure from 26/08/1994.

    Many years later you find out that on 27/09/1994 your NRP paid off half his mortgage, and reduced his monthly housing cost payment. Your argument - because this happened before the CSA sent the assessment letters on 03/10/1994 the NRP should have told them about the change and has misrepresented his circumstances in your view. You therefore want them to go back.

    What Crellow and I are saying is that this is considered a change of circumstances and the NRP had no legal requirement to tell the CSA about this change. The info he gave about his circumstances was correct at the initial effective date, I.e 26/08/1994. Any change that occurred after that date would have to be considered as a supersession (or section 17 review as I think it was known in 1994).

    Your problem is that neither you nor the NRP reported the change at the time, so no review was triggered and, more importantly, the effective date of such a review is only set from the date the CSA was first notified. As you have described the situation, there wasn't any misrepresentation, only a failure to proactively notify the CSA of a change in circumstances. As such no rules have been broken and there is nothing you can do about that now.

    That said, back in 1994, the CSA were required to offer periodic reviews, which later became periodic case checks. Initially they were to be annually, but the law was quickly changed to make this every 2 years due to massive backlogs. The law was changed again some years later removing the ability and the requirement to do them. I forget off hand when this was, but could look it up if needed.

    As such, so long as you weren't receiving income support, JSA(IB) or the old family credit, in 1995 you should have received a letter asking you if you wanted a periodic review. As such, there was at least the potential for this change in housing costs to have been picked up by that process.
    JJWSJS8700 wrote: »
    On csa1 do you know anything regarding a Nrp not being able to sell his property to increase his mortgage (for higher housing costs) within 9 months of the qualifying child's birth?

    I have never heard or read about such a rule. I don't think it exists.
    JJWSJS8700 wrote: »
    Also when csa use half income as housing costs (not actual from mortgage statement), is that because the Nrp has refused to show proof/mortgage statement?

    If the NRP did not provide evidence, my understanding is that back in 1994 no housing costs would be given. As Crellow has said, the half net income rule is a restriction that can be applied in exempt income unless certain exemptions are met.

    The only way to know how your dispute about the NRP's income affected things and if that was correct is for you to post full figures from both versions of the assessment. So, the maintenance needed figure, net income, exempt income including and breakdown of the sub figures, assessable income, notional liability and final assessment amount. Also, if given, the NRP's disposable and protected income figures.
    I often use a tablet to post, so sometimes my posts will have random letters inserted, or entirely the wrong word if autocorrect is trying to wind me up. Hopefully you'll still know what I mean.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 348.4K Banking & Borrowing
  • 252.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 452.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 241K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 617.3K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 175.7K Life & Family
  • 254.2K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.