CSA rule you do not need child benefit to claim!

DUTR

Dadoftwo wrote: »

Just a clarification here. This was a CSA tribunal ruling. Essentially the judge ignored the Income Support because it is not mentioned in the Child Support act, even though under legislation covering Income Support, anyone claiming Income Support is no longer the financial responsibility of anyone.

In addition the Judge rejected our claim that my ex wife could not be classed as a PWC because she does not qualify for Child Benefit. The judge's response was that my ex wife couldn't claim the Child Benefit - which was exactly our point!

It's as though various bits of legislation, Child Support, Child Benefit etc have been designed to almost fit together like a jig-saw puzzle, but the CSA tribunal would only take into account the Child Support legislation. This is what is confusing. After all surely the law is the law and it should be looked at in its entirety, not cherry picked for convenience.

I don't think you have to search very far to find out how a subject qualifies for CSA contribution, now you mention your ex earns >£70k would it be sort of reasonable to assume perhaps you may earn more than twice that amount and therefore outside of the CSA juristriction and that the case you refer to is direct via the courts?
I also notice in your reply you mentioned OUR instead of MY claim, I didn't notice where you included you would raise this with your MP.

Dadoftwo_2

Just a clarification here. This was a CSA tribunal ruling. Essentially the judge ignored the Income Support because it is not mentioned in the Child Support act, even though under legislation covering Income Support, anyone claiming Income Support is no longer the financial responsibility of anyone.

In addition the Judge rejected our claim that my ex wife could not be classed as a PWC because she does not qualify for Child Benefit. The judge's response was that my ex wife couldn't claim the Child Benefit - which was exactly our point!

It's as though various bits of legislation, Child Support, Child Benefit etc have been designed to almost fit together like a jig-saw puzzle, but the CSA tribunal would only take into account the Child Support legislation. From what we have read this framework of legislation has been re-vamped to make this whole area of law more equitable. This seems to have been cast aside in our case; surely the law is the law and it should be looked at in its entirety, not cherry picked for convenience.

My Granddaughter does not have my surname, but has the surname of her father.

The reason this went to an appeal tribunal was primarily because the CSA appeared to pick the definition of a child from the Child Benefit rules, which is an irony considering that my daughters mum doesn't qualify for the Child Benefit.

I mentioned the approximate salary of my ex wife's earnings because it relevant from the perspective of the Income Support. When a household has that sort or income, my understanding is that you would not expect to qualify for Income Support. The judge did not comment on this. It feels wrong that all these factors were brushed under the carpet. In the meantime, we are genuinely struggling and as I mentioned earlier, we have not has a holiday in years - not even a honeymoon. I am just blessed that I have a wonderful, patient wife who has been incredibly supportive throughout all of this.

DUTR

Dadoftwo wrote: »

Just a clarification here. This was a CSA tribunal ruling. Essentially the judge ignored the Income Support because it is not mentioned in the Child Support act, even though under legislation covering Income Support, anyone claiming Income Support is no longer the financial responsibility of anyone.

In addition the Judge rejected our claim that my ex wife could not be classed as a PWC because she does not qualify for Child Benefit. The judge's response was that my ex wife couldn't claim the Child Benefit - which was exactly our point!

It's as though various bits of legislation, Child Support, Child Benefit etc have been designed to almost fit together like a jig-saw puzzle, but the CSA tribunal would only take into account the Child Support legislation. From what we have read this framework of legislation has been re-vamped to make this whole area of law more equitable. This seems to have been cast aside in our case; surely the law is the law and it should be looked at in its entirety, not cherry picked for convenience.

My Granddaughter does not have my surname, but has the surname of her father.

The reason this went to an appeal tribunal was primarily because the CSA appeared to pick the definition of a child from the Child Benefit rules, which is an irony considering that my daughters mum doesn't qualify for the Child Benefit.

I mentioned the approximate salary of my ex wife's earnings because it relevant from the perspective of the Income Support. When a household has that sort or income, my understanding is that you would not expect to qualify for Income Support. The judge did not comment on this. It feels wrong that all these factors were brushed under the carpet. In the meantime, we are genuinely struggling and as I mentioned earlier, we have not has a holiday in years - not even a honeymoon. I am just blessed that I have a wonderful, patient wife who has been incredibly supportive throughout all of this.

You know ? Earlier somebody asked you if you are claiming from your Ex for your Son, I do not recall seeing a reply to that question, if indeed you are not a high earner too, then you will be getting more in CS from your ex than what you are contributing, what is it to be?
Struggling? Some people can have a large income with larger outgoings and a proper budget is all that is required.

clearingout

Your daughter and her child qualify as a household in their own right, I suspect, despite the fact that they live under someone else's roof and therefore have minimal outgoings. This is a different set of rules/Law to the CSA part of the Law. Unfortunately, the Law on child support doesn't fit quite well with other laws - it is particularly an issue for PWC when their ex is self employed, for example.

Your wife earns well. Lucky her. She is entitled to nothing at all to support either her child or her grandchild on that kind of salary yet she is, seemingly, happy to have them under her roof which will be costing her. It's not unreasonable that she requests your daughter pay some kind of 'keep' otherwise how is she ever going to manage in the real world when she has real bills to pay and real priorities to juggle? Your daughter is finishing her education, presumably with her mum's emotional support as much as practical and financial which you surely can't object to? Or is the real issue the fact you think you are absolved of any responsibility becuase your ex earns more than you?

Dadoftwo_2

The real issue here is that my ex wife is lucky to have earned a very high income. My daughter is claiming benefits as a parent with care herself and claims child benefit for her own daughter, my granddaughter. Income support is supposed to be a means tested support and my daughter claims it for herself and claims child benefit for her own daughter. My daughter claims of benefits for herself it as an adult and not as a child. Regardless of the fact that CSA have ruled she is still a child. I earn a great deal less than my ex wife and it concerns me that there is a great deal of benefits being taken from my daughter who is classifying herself as a parent with care and not a child. These benefits are going in to a home where they would not qualify to receive them if my ex wife was claiming them. This was the point I was making to the CSA. That surely benefits would not be paid to an adult and they are having their cake and eating it from the government. I am happy to pay the child maintenance but ex wife is gaining all the benefits a person would receive on a low income as well as my maintenance. My daughter is not benefitting and neither is my grandchild... The only person who is benefitting is my ex wife who went on six holidays last year and four holidays so far this year... Which considering we are only in April is pretty good.

DUTR

Dadoftwo wrote: »

The real issue here is that my wife is lucky to have earned a very high income. My daughter is claiming benefits as a parent with care herself and claims child benefit for her own daughter, my granddaughter. Income support is supposed to be a means tested support and my daughter claims it for herself and claims child benefit for her own daughter. My daughter claims of benefits for herself it as an adult and not as a child. Regardless of the fact that CSA have ruled she is still a child. I earn a great deal less than my ex wife and it concerns me that there is a great deal of benefits being taken from my daughter who is classifying herself as a parent with care and not a child. These benefits are going in to a home where they would not qualify to receive them if my ex wife was claiming them.

It concerns me that you are trickle feeding the thread and not answering basic questions, which seems to back the thought from another poster that you are trolling?
Why are you not claiming for your dependent child?

HoneyNutLoop

This is copied and pasted from gov.uk:

3. Eligibility

To qualify for Income Support you must be all of the following:

• between 16 and Pension Credit qualifying age
• pregnant, or a carer, or a lone parent with a child under 5 or, in some cases, unable to work because you’re sick or disabled
• you have no income or a low income
• working less than 16 hours a week (and your partner works no more than 24 hours a week)
• living in England, Scotland and Wales - there are different rules for Northern Ireland

You don’t need a permanent address, eg you can still claim if you sleep rough or live in a hostel or care home.

You might still qualify if you do unpaid volunteer work or go on parental or paternity leave. Also, you qualify if you’re age 19 or younger, in full-time secondary education (including A levels) and one of the following:

• a parent
• not living with a parent or someone acting as a parent
• a refugee learning English
  You can also qualify up until the age of 21 if you’re one of the above, are orphaned or estranged from your parents and enrolled in education.

From this it seems clear your daughter would be eligible for Income Support without needing to be orphaned or estranged from her parents, as she is under 20, a parent and in full-time secondary education.

Dadoftwo_2

Sorry DUTR, I replied to a private message to address you're questions, we raised it with our local MP, who has also written to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State. We were disappointed that there was no response as yet and it has been some weeks, also we wrote to the department of work and pensions and are still waiting for a reply. I did think that Income Support was a means tested benefit and that as my daughter had help financially to receive benefits to live away from her mother as they were arguing all the time and it was my daughter who asked social services for help when her mother told her to get out of her home. I only found this out afterwards and thought it was strange that a child was receiving benefits as a parent with care herself to live away from my ex wife. Finally, our household income is much, much smaller than my ex wife earns.

DUTR

Dadoftwo wrote: »

Sorry DUTR, I replied to a private message to address you're questions, [snip]
Finally, our household income is much, much smaller than my ex wife earns.

Well if you replied to a private message it certainly wasn't from me :eek:
So we will 'never' know why you are not claiming CS for your son?
After all as you conclude the income in the contributing household is greater than what will leave your household.

Dadoftwo_2

Thank you HoneyNutLoop.
So you can be a child and receive income support....
It does say a parent...
And it does say only one of the following...
But why would it specify that you are not living with a parent or someone acting as a parent?
This is the point I find confusing, when you go to the legislation and the full definition I may have an out of date piece of legislation, but it does state that if a child is claiming income support for themselves as a parent with care of their own child, they are no longer the financial responsibility of any other person. Could you kindly confirm I have the up to date social securities and pensions act legislation relating to income support... It is a bit of a minefield?

HoneyNutLoop wrote: »

This is copied and pasted from gov.uk:

3. Eligibility

To qualify for Income Support you must be all of the following:

• between 16 and Pension Credit qualifying age
• pregnant, or a carer, or a lone parent with a child under 5 or, in some cases, unable to work because you’re sick or disabled
• you have no income or a low income
• working less than 16 hours a week (and your partner works no more than 24 hours a week)
• living in England, Scotland and Wales - there are different rules for Northern Ireland

You don’t need a permanent address, eg you can still claim if you sleep rough or live in a hostel or care home.

You might still qualify if you do unpaid volunteer work or go on parental or paternity leave. Also, you qualify if you’re age 19 or younger, in full-time secondary education (including A levels) and one of the following:

• a parent
• not living with a parent or someone acting as a parent
• a refugee learning English
  You can also qualify up until the age of 21 if you’re one of the above, are orphaned or estranged from your parents and enrolled in education.

From this it seems clear your daughter would be eligible for Income Support without needing to be orphaned or estranged from her parents, as she is under 20, a parent and in full-time secondary education.