Employer but not employed

fed_up_and_stressed

densol wrote: »

Even without WTC which isn't that much, you would be getting child tax credits for 4 kids and also getting 3 severe premium payments for the 3 children PLUS DLA, plus the careers allowance ?

So for my own morbid curiosity I calculated that 4 eligible children, with 3 receiving highest rate DLA, you would receive £24,854 per year.

For 3 kids getting £104 per week EACH DLA - that is £16,224 per year.

Plus carers allowance of £3224 per year.

So that's a grand total of £44302 per year !! Plus child benefit. Isn't that enough ??

I've been known on here to support people's " entitlement " to benefit, but your crazy scheme outlined above to gouge even more money from the tax payer really does take the biscuit !!

Just to make the Mummytofour's situation clearer. She gets mortgage interest payment relief and just last month was planning on buying a btl.

mummytofour wrote: »

I have been considering buying a property in glasgow and renting it out, ideally I would like a situation where I rent it back to the local council for a set period of time and they garenteed a rental figure.
I have no idea at all about buying in Scotland and if the option to rent to the council or housing association is possible.

Does anybody have any helpful information or places I can find information from? I won't needing a mortgage as I'm going to sell my own property and rent myself, in the south east.

Thank you

This is whilst she is receiving state support for her mortgage through smi.

mummytofour wrote: »

Hi guys,
I'm just wondering if you can help?
I get help with my mortgage from income support due to being on carers allowance. I have just found out that they rate they pay has gone done by I think £17 a week, £68 per four weeks. As it was I was already having to make up a short fall of £222 per four weeks so now I'm going to have to find £290 per four weeks.
My mortgage is intrest only and £710 per month, with mortgage express.
Thank you

The mortgage is joint with her ex husband who pays £55 a week to her csa out of his £113k inheritance.

mummytofour wrote: »

Hi,
I'm going to try and keep this simple and not get wrapped up in how my ex has had so much money and me and the children have pretty much been screwed over.

Anyway a couple of months ago my ex recieved 113 k inheritance. He currently is earning £200 a month as he lost his main job in July.
He pays £55 per week, for four children. He has three children stay two nights per week.

Is there anything else I can ask him to pay for legally? Or increase the child support? It's a private arrangement and he has lied about his income in the past and has only been paying child support for a year..

I'm in a very difficult financial situation at the moment as I'm having to move (nasty neighbours and threat of violence) im not going to be able to get HB until the house if for sale and I can't do this until the court has stamped the consent order..

Three of the four boys have autisum and I'm their full time carer.

Thanks in advance :-)

Oh and she has a condition herself which she feels may make her eligible for P.I.P

Maybe this will help posters have more insight while giving financial and benefits advice to the OP.

[Deleted User]

this is one of those threads that goes to prove whats wrong with this forum on both sides of the argument,people should be reminded that its all about giving advice and help,NOT judgement on posters or the system

densol_2

woodbine wrote: »

this is one of those threads that goes to prove whats wrong with this forum on both sides of the argument,people should be reminded that its all about giving advice and help,NOT judgement on posters or the system

NO its not ! Ive been a staunch advisor as to "entitlement" in respect of correctly applying rules and defending peoples entitlement what ever etc .. But getting at least pre tax £77k equivalent earnings, then wanting to set up a company/business to gouge out even more money from the gov to look after the 4 kids one decided to have in the first place is quite frankly abhorrent in my view. No wonder tax credits are being slashed !

[Deleted User]

densol wrote: »

NO its not ! Ive been a staunch advisor as to "entitlement" in respect of correctly applying rules and defending peoples entitlement what ever etc .. But getting at least pre tax £77k equivalent earnings, then wanting to set up a company/business to gouge out even more money from the gov to look after the 4 kids one decided to have in the first place is quite frankly abhorrent in my view. No wonder tax credits are being slashed !

I'm also a backer 100% of entitlement,but you can't slash TC for 3 million hard working families just because a few get more than you might like

cattermole

Icequeen99 wrote: »

I'm interested as to why you think she wouldn't?

If she was to receive direct payments and if she was allowed to use those direct payments to pay herself (instead of a carer) then she would meet the WTC requirements.

The difference is because the direct payments would be given due to the care needs of the child and the person doing the caring would be an employee.

I have come across a couple of direct payment situations where family members have been allowed to receive the direct payments and in that case they are employees.

Nothing in the WTC regs would restrict a situation like that.

Of course, as I said above, there is no need for it in this situation. The DP payments can be used to pay carers therefore the Mother gets the respite she wants and WTC doesn't need to come into it.

(That is aside from the rest of the valid comments already made on this post)

IQ

No you cannot do this, because Direct Payments exclude employing yourself, plus there have to be really exceptional circumstances for Social Services to allow the person living in the same household to be employed.

Direct payments are paid to give assistance or respite in the "parental" role in the case of disabled children because those children have additional care needs, it is paid to the parent in order for them to purchase assistance in meeting those accessed needs.

I have never ever come across a case of a parent paying themselves the DP EVER because the Direct Payment is paid to them not the children. No way would it be agreed to. Plus you cannot register as the Employer with HMRC and then employ yourself, you would then be self-employed.

You are talking of employing another family member when the person receiving the DP is an adult and "they" are the disabled person, it is entirely different. It would be the equivalent of the disabled adult paying themselves to care for themselves. Again it has to be very very exceptional circumstances for someone living in the same household to be the employee and it very rarely happens or is agreed to. If they don't live at the same address then there are no rules preventing it.

In my area in the current climate you would probably not even meet the criteria for getting full services from the Children's Disability Team with ASC unless very very severe. You would be offered special play schemes, buddies etc. you would only get a DP if the child had high personal care needs or very very severe Learning Disabilities.

However if all 4 children have ASC diagnosis which seems highly unusual and children excluded from school, Social Services do have a responsibility to the children and to provide assistance with extra care needs, to support the family.

Direct Payments for Care are not a benefit in any shape or form.

A parent gets a DP to give them a break and assistance with caring for the child who has additional needs, if they paid themselves it would completely defeat the object of giving any kind of assistance in the first place!

cattermole

Icequeen99 wrote: »

It varies from area to area with direct payments. In some areas, there is a user support group who would run the payroll, make the payments. Social services wouldn't normally be the employer - whoever was appointed to deal with the direct payments would be . But there is nothing stopping them being employer and employee.

On the self-employed point it would be an interesting one to test - because the Mother would be in exactly the same position as any other person taking on the role and being paid for it. As I said before - i don't actually think she could claim to be self-employed for tax purposes using the normal tests. But if she got over that hurdle, i think she would pass the self-employed tax credit test because she wouldn't be different to an alternative carer in her position.

It would similar to a childminder who is only looking after their grandchildren - would they not pass the self-employed test either?

The LA will have assessed the children need X number of hours of care. They are normally hesitant to allow family members to be paid unless there is a reason why it is necessary for the family member to be the carer. It is very rare they allow it.

I can't see this arrangement would get past social services. If the Mother wants respite, then she should do that whilst paying a carer. Paying herself as a carer through direct payments and then claiming WTC to claim childcare costs to get respite just seems a pointless exercise.

IQ

No it does not vary from area to area this is totally incorrect.

The person receiving the Direct Payment is the employer or they contract the services from another source like an agency, you do not have to employ someone you can still buy a service from a care provider if you wish. For example a DP could be used by a parent to purchase care from an agency or another care provider like a nursery/child care provision.

The Support Service offer services the DP user can access if they wish like payroll etc and yes these could be a user led support service. Sometimes a 3rd party trust can manage the DP on behalf of the user i.e. someone with a learning disability

Social Services cannot possibly be the employer otherwise it would not be a Direct Payment.

You cannot use a Direct Payment to purchase any services provided directly by a local authority.

The Guidelines, Rules and Law surrounding DP do not vary from area to area.

Icequeen99

cattermole wrote: »

No it does not vary from area to area this is totally incorrect.

The person receiving the Direct Payment is the employer or they contract the services from another source like an agency, you do not have to employ someone you can still buy a service from a care provider if you wish. For example a DP could be used by a parent to purchase care from an agency or another care provider like a nursery/child care provision.

The Support Service offer services the DP user can access if they wish like payroll etc and yes these could be a user led support service. Sometimes a 3rd party trust can manage the DP on behalf of the user i.e. someone with a learning disability

Social Services cannot possibly be the employer otherwise it would not be a Direct Payment.

You cannot use a Direct Payment to purchase any services provided directly by a local authority.

The Guidelines, Rules and Law surrounding DP do not vary from area to area.

I meant the support offered and who would be running the payroll varies not the rules.

In my area, the LA require everyone to use the same payroll company. In other areas, I know there are a number of options. That is what I was referring to rather than it changing who was the employer for HMRC purposes.

All of this is academic as SS just won't allow it.

IQ

Icequeen99

cattermole wrote: »

No it does not vary from area to area this is totally incorrect.

The person receiving the Direct Payment is the employer or they contract the services from another source like an agency, you do not have to employ someone you can still buy a service from a care provider if you wish. For example a DP could be used by a parent to purchase care from an agency or another care provider like a nursery/child care provision.

The Support Service offer services the DP user can access if they wish like payroll etc and yes these could be a user led support service. Sometimes a 3rd party trust can manage the DP on behalf of the user i.e. someone with a learning disability

Social Services cannot possibly be the employer otherwise it would not be a Direct Payment.

You cannot use a Direct Payment to purchase any services provided directly by a local authority.

The Guidelines, Rules and Law surrounding DP do not vary from area to area.

Can you point me to the HMRC rules that say that the same person cannot register as an employer and be an employee at the same time in a care and support situation?

I am not aware of any provision that would stop this (leaving aside the fact social services might not allow it - but it situations where they do allow family members it is possible those family members may also have to administer the direct payment budget). The mother in this case could not just choose to be self-employed, employed vs. self-employed is not a choice.

IQ

cattermole

Icequeen99 wrote: »

I meant the support offered and who would be running the payroll varies not the rules.

In my area, the LA require everyone to use the same payroll company. In other areas, I know there are a number of options. That is what I was referring to rather than it changing who was the employer for HMRC purposes.

All of this is academic as SS just won't allow it.

IQ

Yes the support....
LA'S have become more prescriptive that's for sure however to insist everyone uses the same payroll company is probably not legal because it is supposed to be about choice and control. It means they are telling users where to buy their payroll from.

The amount they pay to the support service for the payroll strictly speaking is part of the DP. If the user wants to use a different payroll service they should be able to do so.

The reality is most users just go alone with it.

PasturesNew

fed_up_and_stressed wrote: »

Just to make the Mummytofour's situation clearer. She gets mortgage interest payment relief and just last month was planning on buying a btl.

This is whilst she is receiving state support for her mortgage through smi.

The mortgage is joint with her ex husband who pays £55 a week to her csa out of his £113k inheritance.

Oh and she has a condition herself which she feels may make her eligible for P.I.P

Maybe this will help posters have more insight while giving financial and benefits advice to the OP.

I love it when people bother to make proper notes and summarise them