Benefit Fraud, Tax Avoidance and CSA

wishgirl

Good evening,

wondering if anyone has came across anything like this to put my mind as ease.

my ex partner tried everything to avoid paying csa and about 5 years ago he was given a suspended sentence and ordered to pay £10 a week arrears. Just before the court date he became unemployment and has claimed JSA ever since so has only paid the ten pounds arrears payments, no regular maintenance.

Unknown to me, all of this time he has been working cash in hand full time making a good amount each week and still signing on for JSA. Well like as normally happens, he has been found out and I have been told that he is in trouble for benefit fraud and tax avoidance.

This leaves me with 3 questions.
1) will he still be expected to make the arrears payments of £10 even with his JSA stopped?
2) Will he now be assessed on his earnings with the exception that he makes regular payments?
3) As I expect the tax man will want the income tax and NI that my ex hasn't paid over the last 5 years due to his fraud, can I expect that I will be due support for my daughter in regards to this time?

I am a working mum who is struggling on a limited income so I am worried about the £10 a week first at foremost but it would also be nice to think that I may be entitled to a little more as my daughter has reached the age of iphones and trainers lol x

DUTR

1) CS is not liable if the NRP is in prison
2) Only legal earnings are used for assesment.
3) Tax man comes 1st.

Iphones and fancy trainers are not essential and that's not what CS was desinged to help with I'm afraid .

atrixblue.-MFR-.

DUTR wrote: »

1) CS is not liable if the NRP is in prison
2) Only legal earnings are used for assesment.
3) Tax man comes 1st.

Iphones and fancy trainers are not essential and that's not what CS was desinged to help with I'm afraid .

Urrm the CSA was designed to ensure that fathers are to pay for a childs upkeep. as they get older they desire more expensive things and so were created to enforce the child support act 1991 and adaption to statutes there after.


If the they come of age where the costs rise due to technology and social status of what they wear then yes CSA was designed to gather SOME of those costs from the father.


CSA was not designed to gather solely essential costs, such as education costs and food and a housing costs it was designed to encompass all contributed costs of raising a child as if you were still present in the relationship.

DUTR

atrixblue.-MFR-. wrote: »

Urrm the CSA was designed to ensure that fathers are to pay for a childs upkeep. as they get older they desire more expensive things and so were created to enforce the child support act 1991 and adaption to statutes there after.


If the they come of age where the costs rise due to technology and social status of what they wear then yes CSA was designed to gather SOME of those costs from the father.


CSA was not designed to gather solely essential costs, such as education costs and food and a housing costs it was designed to encompass all contributed costs of raising a child as if you were still present in the relationship.

I think you will find it was designed for the none resident parent to contribute towards the upkeep, not just the male to pay
As adults we know most will have to work hard for the nice things in life.

wishgirl

You've completed missed the point, I cover everything myself at the moment as anyone can agree that a child costs more then a tenner a week. That wasn't my question at all!
If you cant answer the question don't waste your time posting useless answers

DUTR

wishgirl wrote: »

You've completed missed the point, I cover everything myself at the moment as anyone can agree that a child costs more then a tenner a week. That wasn't my question at all!
If you cant answer the question don't waste your time posting useless answers

If you mean me, then the answers were posted in post #2, if you may not like the answers you read then don't post the question.

DUTR

The Child Support Agency (CSA) is a delivery arm of the Department for Work and Pensions (Child Maintenance Group) in Great Britain and the Department for Social Development in Northern Ireland. Launched on 5 April 1993, the CSA is responsible for implementing the Child Support Act 1991 and subsequent legislation.

eve31

Wishgirl you post your question and any further legitimate questions without concern about unhelpful posters. I'm in the same position as you bringing up my children without financial support from my ex who has gone to extensive lengths to avoid child maintenance.

The poster DUTR obviously has no experience of the true cost of raising children. I'm sure if your child needs new trainers or a new phone on top of all the other expense of raising your child you will scrimp and save and go without yourself to provide these things. Children have things like birthdays and Christmas that's when these gadgets and trainers are bought for presents.

Hold your head high!!!

DUTR

eve31 wrote: »

Wishgirl you post your question and any further legitimate questions without concern about unhelpful posters. I'm in the same position as you bringing up my children without financial support from my ex who has gone to extensive lengths to avoid child maintenance.

The poster DUTR obviously has no experience of the true cost of raising children. I'm sure if your child needs new trainers or a new phone on top of all the other expense of raising your child you will scrimp and save and go without yourself to provide these things. Children have things like birthdays and Christmas that's when these gadgets and trainers are bought for presents.

Hold your head high!!!

Eve I have 17 years of being a NRP who pays their CSA weekly without fail, so I have a lot of knowledge of raising children or certainly the costs involved. A poster above incorrectly said urmm the CSA was to make fathers pay for the upbringing of the children, this is not correct.
My CSA contributions went to stabling a horse , the PWC in my case mismanages money and perhaps spoils the child, it's not for me to keep filling the leaking bucket, 15% is what I contribute, perhaps I would be a little (well a lot) more interested if in my case the PWC worked full time and not minimum hours topped up with state handouts, only good thing that has come out of the child's mouth is that she said she doesn't want to end up like her Mum, and she has said that to the Mum. :eek:

eve31

The OP has nothing to do with your circumstances. We are talking about NRP who go to great lengths to avoid providing any financial support to their children while the RP shoulders the whole financial responsibility.

DUTR

eve31 wrote: »

The OP has nothing to do with your circumstances. We are talking about NRP who go to great lengths to avoid providing any financial support to their children while the RP shoulders the whole financial responsibility.

I was replying to your reply suggesting I know little about the costs of raising offspring, you were wrong about that, you then go on to say you are in a simila r situation to the OP, that has nothing to do with the OP's query either, when it comes to monies owed, the HMRC has higher priority than CS contributions, CS is not liable if the NRP is a prisoner and CS contributions are only assessable on legal income not cash in hand, so there was nothing wrong in post #2 We have talked plenty on this board about NRPs that go to lengths to reduce or avoid CS contributions.
It would be different if the OP was on about buying clothes or shoes for the child, but none essential items to keep up with the kids at school..... well they will have to find a way to earn more if they want those luxury items.