Should 18y/o son move out?

Conor_3

Whilst you're telling him that, remind him what his job is and family councillor is not one of them.

rog2

As far as I am aware, there is NO law in the land which states that your son must contribute to the household income - irrespective of his earnings.

Richard_S

The subject of our teenage children making contributions to the household income was brought up but we passed that off by saying that they weren't in a position to contribute, and any money they earned was insignificant.

I took the view that it wasn't their responsibility to pay for our mistakes; talk about the "sins of the fathers".:mad:

whitehartman

Hello again,
Not phoned OR yet, but would any alarm bells be ringing for the OR if my son moves out, and would he need any kind of proof, also has he the power to look into his bank account or social security payments etc?.
I dont want to tip the OR into putting me into an IPA,as apart from the son moving out thing,he has been good as to not putting me into an IPA already.

Richard_S

whitehartman wrote: »

Hello again,
Not phoned OR yet, but would any alarm bells be ringing for the OR if my son moves out, and would he need any kind of proof, also has he the power to look into his bank account or social security payments etc?.
I dont want to tip the OR into putting me into an IPA,as apart from the son moving out thing,he has been good as to not putting me into an IPA already.

I can well imagine that when you broached the subject with your son you had a blazing row and he walked out and as far as you know is staying with friends.;)

I'm almost certain that the O.R has no right to insist on access to family members' bank accounts and other sensitive information; the O.R does have strong powers but so do the data protection authorities.

Have you posted your Income & Expenditure budget? There may be items of expenditure that you've forgotten to include that would put you a long way under the threshold of an IPA. The O.R's are usually friendly people but don't get lulled into a false sense of security. Their job is to raise as much as possible for your creditors; he may be friendly but he's not a friend.:eek:

Richard

rog2

whitehartman wrote: »

Hello again,
Not phoned OR yet, but would any alarm bells be ringing for the OR if my son moves out, and would he need any kind of proof, also has he the power to look into his bank account or social security payments etc?.
I dont want to tip the OR into putting me into an IPA,as apart from the son moving out thing,he has been good as to not putting me into an IPA already.

There should be no alarm bells WHM. If you tell your OR that you broached the subject of contributions, or moving out - as per OR suggestion, with your son, the OR should NOT be surprised that your son has taken what was, after all, the OR's suggestion and decided to move out.
In fact, the OR should revise your I/E downwards, as he will no longer be able to take an arbitrary figure, based on what HE considers to be your son's contribution, into account when assessing your income for an IPO/IPA.
I would also be inclined to make the point that you are very unhappy about your son being 'co-erced' into leaving the family home by what you consider to be an unfair and judgemental assumption by the OR.

Idiophreak

rog2 wrote: »

I actually agree with your son - why SHOULD he be punished for your debts?

I'll say straight up...I don't know that much about BR, so forgive me if the answer to this is obvious...I'm not trying to start a fight, just curious.

But couldn't the question be viewed just as much as "why should your debts be punished for your son?"

In effect, aren't you deciding to pay for your son to live at home, rather than paying your creditors the money...Why is it so unreasonable for them to suggest your son pays his keep (I will say, however, that £75 seems pretty steep for this...) and allow you to pay more to your creditors?

(I don't really mean your case in particular, more just the general concept...)

If parents want to give their children free keep at 18+, that's their choice, but it will cost them money...and indeed a lot of parents (mine included) couldn't afford to do this...should the OR, then, really allow you to make that choice?

Or am I missing something...?

rog2

Idiophreak wrote: »

Or am I missing something...?

Yes, Ideophreak, I think you are missing something.

I appreciate the tone, and intention, of your post, but I think it is out of context. The OP's son can NOT be held, neither Legally nor Morally, resposible for the actions of the OP.

Cheers.
Rog2

Idiophreak

rog2 wrote: »

I appreciate the tone, and intention, of your post, but I think it is out of context. The OP's son can NOT be held, neither nor Morally, resposible for the actions of the OP.

Just to clear this up...is the OR talking about taking the money from the son directly, or asking the parents to start taking it off their son?

I think they're two very different things. The first is, as you say, making the son responsible for their debts, which is wrong.

But the second is, as I was trying to get at, just asking them to stop gifting their money to someone else. The son isn't being made "responsible" for anything besides his own keep. He may feel he's being "punished", but it's not the case at all...they're just having to pay their way (as most 18+ folks do one way or another) rather than getting a free ride.

The people who'll really feel the punishment, surely, are the parents, who will (as OP shows) be upset that they're no longer able to offer their children free shelter...

b-a-b suggests, though, there's gonna be a record, somewhere, of the amount it's costing to house the additional person? If it is, asking for them to get that money from the person in question, doesn't seem unreasonable...?

rog2

Idiophreak wrote: »

Just to clear this up...is the OR talking about taking the money from the son directly, or asking the parents to start taking it off their son?

I think they're two very different things. The first is, as you say, making the son responsible for their debts, which is wrong.

But the second is, as I was trying to get at, just asking them to stop gifting their money to someone else. The son isn't being made "responsible" for anything besides his own keep. He may feel he's being "punished", but it's not the case at all...they're just having to pay their way (as most 18+ folks do one way or another) rather than getting a free ride.

The people who'll really feel the punishment, surely, are the parents, who will (as OP shows) be upset that they're no longer able to offer their children free shelter...

b-a-b suggests, though, there's gonna be a record, somewhere, of the amount it's costing to house the additional person? If it is, asking for them to get that money from the person in question, doesn't seem unreasonable...?

I really am sorry to repeat myself, but I do feel that you have missed the point totally.

1. There is NO law in the UK that states that children living at home MUST contribute to the household income.

2. It is NOT up to the OR to make 'judgemental' decisions - that is the prerogative of the judiciary and not the civil service.

3. IF the OP were to decide to ask his son for a contribution, then of course that contribution should be declared, but no-one has the right to demand that he asks his son to contribute.