Making a contractual Mutual agreement for Child Maintenance.

nipper76

Hello...

after reading this post...

"Get it all done legally I have a voluntary arrangement with my ex-wife. However unlike just paying it, I have a legal agreement stating the amounts to be paid, when to be paid and that it is 'maintenance' for (name of child).

This document was signed by both of us and witnessed as such, and yes it is legally binding, as it states what redress she has should I fail to meet my part of the agreement also.

Always get it in writing, signed and witnessed. I know that there are parties out there that may refuse, but when you get the agreement drawn up and sent, explain that without it being signed they will have to revert to CSA, also ensure that when you send it that you tell then to seek independent advice prior to signing."


Does anyone know of a template that can be used for making an official agreement for maintenance payments..??

How would you make it official..?
do you have to get it witnessed and who could do it..?

From what i read it would appear that CSA is now closed and encouraging people to make mutual agreements... so hopefully this way it would provide a bit of security for both parties...

Many Thanks.

HappyMJ

It's still voluntary either side can cancel the agreement and revert to CSA if they believe they will be better off.

nipper76

ok. So basically the letter would just be to assure csa that we have both agreed to an mutual agreement and that they payments through csa Can cease?

HoneyNutLoop

It's not for the CSA at all. They don't need and won't want to see it. The form is for you and your PWC to use to record the terms of your private agreement, so you both are clear about what is expected.

For the CSA case to be closed, the applicant (most commonly the PWC) must tell the CSA to close their case. If you are not the applicant, you are reliant on your PWC doing this. There is also nothing to stop either of you applying to CMS (CSA replacement) in the future, for any reason.

CSAworkerx

"For the CSA case to be closed, the applicant (most commonly the PWC)"

it is, and always will be the pwc that has the right to close a case, the nrp cannot close a case without us speaking to the pwc in 99% of situations, in reguards to the op's question, that agreement isnt worth the hassle, wed simply ignore it if ure pwc asked the agency to take payments, as we dont look at previous circs, only what is happening now, so if a pwc states she wants payments from today, we enforce that as such.

HoneyNutLoop

Caseworkerx you are simply wrong. It is the applicant who can close the case not the PWC. I can come back and quote the relevant law, or for simplicity's sake, you can go away and check your procedures, as you have them. Have you ever actually dealt with an NRP application? It may be in your experience that you always have to speak to the PWC, because in the vast majority of cases the PWC is the applicant. But that does not mean the PWC has the final say on every case. For example, when they weren't the one who applied.

As for your statement the the child maintenance options family based arrangement form isn't worth the hassle - isn't that for the parents to decide? It's their family based arrangement and nothing to do with the CSA. It won't achieve the ops objective of being proof for the CSA. But that doesn't mean that for some parents it's not a useful tool.

CSAworkerx

Even with nrp apps, we will still contact the pwc on closure to inform she/he has the right to supercede within 8 weeks and the case will remain effective from the intial effective date, thus the case remains open. Yes, the case is closed, A new one is then opened with the pwc as the lead case, the e/d remains identical and all that the nrp achived was the initial e/d. Thus they havent really closed anything but the lead app.

As for your other comment, the op is asking is there a way he can have a contractual and official to which i said, There is no point trying to make it official, you cant, all he can do is pay MD, get proof through bank transfers and hope the pwc doesnt ask the agency to start collecting, which she can do at any point, for any reason.

HoneyNutLoop

So, your advice "it is, and always will be the pwc that has the right to close a case, the nrp cannot close a case without us speaking to the pwc in 99% of situations..." was wrong. It is the applicant that closes the case, not the PWC. Of course the PWC could then apply, and then they would be the applicant. The same applies the other way round though. If the PWC asks to close the case, say for the 13 week linking rule to change schemes, the NRP can then reapply.

Also, my understanding is the maintenance calculation procedural regulation 29(a) would not apply in this situation, as it specifically states the application must be in respect of a different person with care:
"Effective dates of maintenance calculations in specified cases

29. Where an application for a maintenance calculation is made under section 4 or 7 of the Act, or treated as made under section 6(3) of the Act—

(a)except where the parent with care has made a request under section 6(5) of the Act, where in the period of 8 weeks immediately preceding the date the application is made, or treated as made under regulation 3, there has been in force a maintenance calculation in respect of the same non-resident parent and child but a different person with care, the effective date of the maintenance calculation made in respect of the application shall be the day following the day on which the previous maintenance calculation ceased to have effect;"

If you are referring to a different regulation, I would be interested in the link, as to my knowledge, the subsequent application following case closure, be it by NRP or PWC would have it's effective date set as normal, not under 8 week linking.

Finally, you are conflating maintenance direct and family based arrangements. Child maintenance options encourage parents making their own family based arrangement to document it in some way, so both are clear about the terms of the arrangement: http://www.cmoptions.org/en/family/how-to-make.asp. It has nothing to do with the CSA or even CMS. Whether using the form is too much hassle is for the parents to decide. Its already been said that it will have no bearing on the CSA or CMS's obligations, should either parent apply. But to say it is not worth the hassle is not a judgement for you to make. It may help parents resolve their own disputes without them needing to apply to CMS to take over arrangement. Or it might not. As for whether it would be deemed a contract and therefore enforceable, would, I imagine, be a matter for the courts to decide, not the CSA.