child maintenence fees commence august

sandyandy

I have paid my ex child maintenance each month since separating in March 2011. She has decided to take the case to the childmaintenance service in January 2014. They worked out the monthly amount to pay based on my income but have now told me I have no choice but to pay the additional 20% as the receiving parents is the only one who decides whether to accept payments direct. Is this correct as I am willing to pay my child maintenance but do not understand why I will have to pay another £50 to the government in fees. Everyone was up in arms about bank charges this is scandalous. Is there anything I can do.

HoneyNutLoop

Hi, this is a link to the Q&A page on dad.info:
http://m.dad.info/advice-and-support/child-maintenance/child-maintenance-child-maintenance/child-maintenance-q-a/

It confirms that when charging actually starts, you will be allowed to choose to pay the PWC directly to avoid charging. The only exception to this payment choice is if CMS decide you are unlikely to pay, based on your existing payment history.

So whilst you can't currently choose to pay direct without the PWC's consent, you should be able to in the future when the rules change.

PreludeForTimeFeelers

Yup, HNL is correct. Charging is coming in soon, and if you choose to carry on paying through the CMS then you will pay a collection fee on top of your maintenance amount. You can avoid this charge by requesting direct pay from July onwards (when the changes to legislation have gone through).

fannyanna

HoneyNutLoop wrote: »

It confirms that when charging actually starts, you will be allowed to choose to pay the PWC directly to avoid charging. The only exception to this payment choice is if CMS decide you are unlikely to pay, based on your existing payment history.

By the sound of it the PWC could make it awkward and say that the NRP has to pay via the CSA.

I think that's unfair but the CSA and fairness don't exactly go hand in hand.

AnxiousMum

I can see the reasons for the charges being necessary in some cases. My ex I know, would not pay if CSA/CMS didn't deduct it from his wages. So he has caused them to do this, and rather than agree to contribute to his kids, an outside agency has to be involved. Who funds them? Why shouldn't the people who make it necessary for them to exist fund them? It'll be pure joy when he finds out this is going to be added on to his monthly deduction though. ho hum

HoneyNutLoop

fannyanna wrote: »

By the sound of it the PWC could make it awkward and say that the NRP has to pay via the CSA.

I think that's unfair but the CSA and fairness don't exactly go hand in hand.

I think you've misunderstood. When charging is brought in and the rules change, a paying parent will not need the receiving parent's consent to change to direct pay. They will need CMS's consent, though, which will not be granted if CMS think it is unlikely they will pay, I.e. They already have a poor payment history. There is more info about this on NACSA too, and the government's consultation papers on the subject, if you're interested.

Don't forget, the collection charges are not just for paying parents. The receiving parent will also incur a charge, although at the much smaller rate of 4%.

fannyanna

HoneyNutLoop wrote: »

I think you've misunderstood. When charging is brought in and the rules change, a paying parent will not need the receiving parent's consent to change to direct pay. They will need CMS's consent, though, which will not be granted if CMS think it is unlikely they will pay, I.e. They already have a poor payment history.

Well that's ok then.

clearingout

HoneyNutLoop wrote: »

I think you've misunderstood. When charging is brought in and the rules change, a paying parent will not need the receiving parent's consent to change to direct pay

To be clear for anyone reading this further down the line - you will only get 'direct pay' for as long as you continue to make payments. The PWC will be allowed to return to the CSA and ask for them to collect if a payment is missed which is when the charging kicks in. The 20% charge on the NRP is therefore 'incentive' not to miss payments. It is going to be more important than ever that the NRP keeps the CSA up to date with their situation - particularly when getting ill or being made redundant - to avoid having to pay the charge in the future when things get back to 'normal'.

PreludeForTimeFeelers

clearingout wrote: »

To be clear for anyone reading this further down the line - you will only get 'direct pay' for as long as you continue to make payments. The PWC will be allowed to return to the CSA and ask for them to collect if a payment is missed which is when the charging kicks in. The 20% charge on the NRP is therefore 'incentive' not to miss payments. It is going to be more important than ever that the NRP keeps the CSA up to date with their situation - particularly when getting ill or being made redundant - to avoid having to pay the charge in the future when things get back to 'normal'.

Correct, and one of the major changes with the 2012 scheme is that direct pay is enforceable, unlike maintenance direct on 93/03 schemes - this means that there's a safety net to take the risk of missed maintenance away for receiving parents. If payments are missed then the receiving parent can contact CMS who will check what payments have been missed, then collect any of these that weren't paid (with the 20% collection fee on top).

HoneyNutLoop

clearingout wrote: »

To be clear for anyone reading this further down the line - you will only get 'direct pay' for as long as you continue to make payments. The PWC will be allowed to return to the CSA and ask for them to collect if a payment is missed which is when the charging kicks in. The 20% charge on the NRP is therefore 'incentive' not to miss payments. It is going to be more important than ever that the NRP keeps the CSA up to date with their situation - particularly when getting ill or being made redundant - to avoid having to pay the charge in the future when things get back to 'normal'.

PreludeForTimeFeelers wrote: »

Correct, and one of the major changes with the 2012 scheme is that direct pay is enforceable, unlike maintenance direct on 93/03 schemes - this means that there's a safety net to take the risk of missed maintenance away for receiving parents. If payments are missed then the receiving parent can contact CMS who will check what payments have been missed, then collect any of these that weren't paid (with the 20% collection fee on top).

+1 for both posts. My post was about the initial payment choice, and linked to the information contained on dad.info. It definitely should not be considered in isolation.

PreludeForTimeFeelers

I think that there have been a lot of mis-steps by the Government when it comes to Child Maintenance, but the new legislation surrounding Direct Pay is something that should be highlighted and praised. It takes away any risk when it comes to service type selection.