Child Support....my idea

eve31

Robin-o'-the-Hood wrote: »

That is pretty much my belief...my suggestion is simply a frustrated response to the fact that this simply doesn't happen. I do work full-time, and took a pay cut to allow me to look after my son, my son's mother doesn't work as far as I know. (Director of companies that don't seem to do very much at all, no web presence, no office number, accommodation address etc)
I don't agree that NRPs should simply 'sign on' to pay maintenance though. That is shifting their financial responsibility to the taxpayer.
I do appreciate that my suggestion could be unfair. I'm not advocating any raid on the assets or income of a NRP's partner but that if the NRP is delinquent in maintenance then they as a unit pay what the NRP should pay. The difficulty is what at level the payment should be levied.

Have you asked for a variation for dividend income? If she is a director of companies, she may receive a dividend income. Are the companies registered at companies house?

Robin-o'-the-Hood

eve31 wrote: »

Have you asked for a variation for dividend income? If she is a director of companies, she may receive a dividend income. Are the companies registered at companies house?

Hello. Yes the companies have been registered: one where she had the role of Company Secretary in the incorporation docs was incorporated in 2009 and dissolved 2011.

The other was incorporated by her future husband and one other person. This person's Directorship terminated a few months after incorporation. Subsequently, she (my son's mother, NRP) was 'Appointed'/'Terminated' twice in 9 months before being Appointed again. (eg. She was Appointed as a Director then the appointment was Terminated 13 days later...the same day she was Appointed as a Director yet again. Her future husband's Directorship was Terminated on that day also, leaving her as sole Director. Busy day at the office...)
Since then this company has been threatened with compulsory strike-off but each time it was contested and the strike off was suspended. The company's accounts and returns are overdue.
(I know nothing about company formation but note that on incorporation each Director had a sole share with a nominal value of £1. Is this odd or quite normal?)
Her business activities and those of her associates just seem a little odd.

MataNui

The £1 is totally standard. Its a limited liability company. The shareholders liability is limited to the value of the share they have. So you would want it to be low. £1 is the standard value on incorporation.

eve31

Robin-o'-the-Hood wrote: »

Hello. Yes the companies have been registered: one where she had the role of Company Secretary in the incorporation docs was incorporated in 2009 and dissolved 2011.

The other was incorporated by her future husband and one other person. This person's Directorship terminated a few months after incorporation. Subsequently, she (my son's mother, NRP) was 'Appointed'/'Terminated' twice in 9 months before being Appointed again. (eg. She was Appointed as a Director then the appointment was Terminated 13 days later...the same day she was Appointed as a Director yet again. Her future husband's Directorship was Terminated on that day also, leaving her as sole Director. Busy day at the office...)
Since then this company has been threatened with compulsory strike-off but each time it was contested and the strike off was suspended. The company's accounts and returns are overdue.
(I know nothing about company formation but note that on incorporation each Director had a sole share with a nominal value of £1. Is this odd or quite normal?)
Her business activities and those of her associates just seem a little odd.

I think the sole share with a nominal value of £1 is quite normal. It just means that they have only paid a £1 for the shares of the company.

My ex when we were together, for tax reasons which I didn't understand at the time, registered me as company secretary. I had nothing to do with the company (one man band ltd company) I remember having to sign some documents, I didn't question it. But a while later I asked him to remove me as I was concerned it would look like I wasn't declaring earnings that he was supposedly paying me, which he never did. God knows what profits he offset as a salary to me to avoid corporation tax. Very naive at the time.

The fact that the accounts and returns are overdue, suggest mismanagement and not keeping on top of accounts, also the shifty way they have gone about changing who is director. Sounds very shady! What do they supposedly do out of interest? She has to be the one receiving income via a very small salary and dividends or how else would they take money out of the company and live a comfortable lifestyle.

I would ask for a variation if you haven't already done so to take into account dividend income. If you are successful it sounds like they would just take her off being a director. Your only option would be to try and get to a tribunal on the grounds of diversion of income.

I know how frustrating it is the depths some NRP will go to to avoid paying any child maintenance. You either fight it or let it go. But rest assured you have the love of your child which no money can buy.

Robin-o'-the-Hood

MataNui wrote: »

"As I said, by helping his partner avoid their responsibility then they as a unit, could/should pay the NRP's share, assessed against a CT band."

He is not 'helping' anyone avoid responsibility. The ONLY person avoiding responsibility is your EX and that is 100% on them.

"The principle of new partners being held financially responsible for children is already acknowledged in law; I believe the income of a partner of a PWC is already taken into account in tax credit claims. But I might be wrong as I don't claim any."

Yes, both incomes are taken into account but to suggest that is similar is ridiculous. With CT both incomes are taken into account to determine a benefit to that unit. What you are suggesting is the incomes of 2 people are taken into account to determine a benefit to a third party of whom one of the people has no legal relationship with and may never have met or may never meet.

Additionally you have twice made reference to the 'ASSETS' in the sole name of a third party to whom neither you nor your child have any legal relationship with, being used to determine a benefit to you payable by them. If you cant see how perverse that you are seriously a lost cause.

Lets assume just for a second you get your way and what mine could become yours if i decide to have some brief fling with your ex. where exactly do you think that would end?

Clearly this would need to work both ways. If for example some rich widow decided to take you on then i assume you would be happy if your ex perhaps ended up paying nothing (if your new partner was rich enough) or is this just another one way to the PWC thing???

Of course this other person could avoid paying you a penny if they turfed your ex out onto the street. Or would you expect the CSA to take the view that they have now 'avoided' payment of 'their' responsibilities or taken some deliberate action to your detriment and should still pay?

I am not saying the current system is perfect. Or even acceptable. Its a compromise like anything else. It works great for some, OK for the majority and poorly for a minority. It has to balance the rights of both the PWC and NRP to be able to move on with their lives after the split and the need to ensure the child is supported by both parents and not the state.

Your suggestion though completely removes the right of the NRP to move on. NOBODY with the slightest bit of common sense would start a relationship with an NRP if it meant they would end up paying money to that persons ex based on their personal assets and income.

In interesting thing though is that with CSA1 the form said you had to put your partners details. It was a lie of course. There was never any legal obligation to do it although CSA frequently insisted it was completed. The only thing i ever put in that field was 'none of your f**king business'.

The point of my suggestion was in regard to a situation where the NRP was paying nothing, but was in the lucky position to be able to choose to do that. In many cases it is because they decide to have no income because they have no need of one. Lucky them. But both parents are liable for their child.
My suggestion is to force some responsibility that is all. It doesn't involve seizing houses, assets or anything else. It was simply another means of assessing financial position. If that makes things difficult for an NRP with a new partner who enables them not to work, then diddums.
You don't like my suggestion. Fine. But as I said, at least its a suggestion. Instead of sniping, since you accept the system is flawed, how would you make an NRP face up to their responsibilities?? Do you have any suggestions?
The scenarios you suggest are far-fetched...any Third Party clearly has no obligation to support another's child. That's not what I said. I am saying that if an NRP won't/can't pay based on income then the assessment should be considered on property/situation. What else is there? (I did say at the very beginning of this post I was speaking from my own circumstances. Others will be very different. And my circumstances are that if the NRP isn't facing up their financial responsibilities but living in a Band H property then there is something odd going on somewhere.) But, no, any Third Party 'contribution' however you define it, would last only as long as they were associated with an NRP. Why would it last longer? The point I've tried to make is that if the NRP is refusing to pay then they and their partner become liable together in some degree, in some manner. That doesn't mean I'm suggesting is house, cars, yachts, whatever are taken as some kind of income. Just that if the NRP was liable for £x then both become for £x, for as long as they are together. No more, no less. I've already stated that defining x is the difficulty.

The idea of the PWC acquiring a 'rich widow/er' is frankly nonsense. The wealth of the PWC and any subsequent partner they have is utterly irrelevant to the NRP's responsibilities. A PWC's wealth does not absolve the NRP of their responsibility. Both PWC and NRP are liable for their child. The PWC is facing up to theirs, so must the NRP. End of story.
The rights of the NRP to 'move on' are not impinged in the slightest by what I've suggested. They work, they pay their maintenance, even if that means they have to take on a job they don't need for their own financial requirements. My suggestion concerned those who do not. By allowing the PWC alone to support a child is denying some of their right to 'move on'.

But as I said, I welcome your suggestions and anyone else's as to how parents can face up to their responsibilities, if you believe, as you seem to, that the present system isn't working very well.
As an afterthought, what are your thoughts on the ability of the CSA/CMS to have a non-paying NRP's driving licence or passport suspended (assuming this is still a sanction)? Wouldn't this impinge on their partner too and be unfair on them?

Robin-o'-the-Hood

eve31 wrote: »

I think the sole share with a nominal value of £1 is quite normal. It just means that they have only paid a £1 for the shares of the company.

My ex when we were together, for tax reasons which I didn't understand at the time, registered me as company secretary. I had nothing to do with the company (one man band ltd company) I remember having to sign some documents, I didn't question it. But a while later I asked him to remove me as I was concerned it would look like I wasn't declaring earnings that he was supposedly paying me, which he never did. God knows what profits he offset as a salary to me to avoid corporation tax. Very naive at the time.

The fact that the accounts and returns are overdue, suggest mismanagement and not keeping on top of accounts, also the shifty way they have gone about changing who is director. Sounds very shady! What do they supposedly do out of interest? She has to be the one receiving income via a very small salary and dividends or how else would they take money out of the company and live a comfortable lifestyle.

I would ask for a variation if you haven't already done so to take into account dividend income. If you are successful it sounds like they would just take her off being a director. Your only option would be to try and get to a tribunal on the grounds of diversion of income.

I know how frustrating it is the depths some NRP will go to to avoid paying any child maintenance. You either fight it or let it go. But rest assured you have the love of your child which no money can buy.

Thanks for the above. It was quite enlightening. I think it might be interesting to ask for a variation but I won't get my hopes up. The businesses she seems to have been involved with are management consulting/IT services and such like...so not much capital involved. (given the nature of the businesses I would have assumed a web presence but there was none) The company 'offices' are a residential address apart from a 'letterbox' elsewhere.
I do have a strong bond with my son...his mother has no conception of what he looks like even, but it is hard being both parents sometimes.

MataNui

Yes i do think is flawed. The solution has to be based on enforcement. As in your case the NRP clearly has their own income and assets. Its enforcing they pay thats the problem. As i said any system is a compromise and the CSA is very much a perfect example of compromise.

The CSA is full of lazy, incompetent civil servants. they take the path of least resistance and pummel the people they know about, the ones who pay regularly while avoiding the cases they know will take time and money to pursue. This is your problem... The internet is littered with examples of PWC not getting money from people who try to avoid paying and NRPs actually being driven to suicide because of blatantly fraudulent assessments and threats.

Its because of personal experience that i can say the following:
Actually nothing of what i said is 'far fetched' in the slightest and if you knew anything about how the CSA currently deals with NRPs you would know that. They are an organization that virtually has the power of God. Assessments are final and there is no realistic appeal. If you gave them the power to take into account an NRPs partners income or assets where do you think that would end? Would it just be those who would perhaps face court action today? Would it hell as like. It would be abused daily and yes, people could lose their house (or at least feel so under threat that relationships would end).

At one point i may have been included in your little group of non-payers. I bet the CSA would have treated me as such. When we split (case long closed now) i filled in the forms and sent them off. I got the assessment back (pretty much what i was expecting) but didnt know my ex got a copy too. A couple of weeks later i got a new assessment. This was for more than my actual net income. I later found out my ex had phoned them and disputed it. She made up a number that must have been about 4 times what i actually made. They believed her one phone call over my payslips. It got worse. because i couldnt pay they did a DEO. Then my employer couldnt pay what they asked for (because i didnt earn that much) so the arrears just kept building up. Pretty sure under your scheme at this point CSA would be looking at my partners income and assets (if i had one at the time). Eventually after a few months they corrected the assessment. Do you think they wrote off the arrears? did they f**k as like. According to them as they were acting on 'reliable' information that they took to be correct they assessment stood.

Your idea is based on a happy world where government agencies do the job they are supposed to and act lawfully and with common sense. That doesnt work in real life. Any world where an organization so full of lazy stupid morons like the CSA has the sorts of powers you describe is a world i would rather not live in.

Robin-o'-the-Hood

MataNui wrote: »

Yes i do think is flawed. The solution has to be based on enforcement. As in your case the NRP clearly has their own income and assets. Its enforcing they pay thats the problem. As i said any system is a compromise and the CSA is very much a perfect example of compromise.

The CSA is full of lazy, incompetent civil servants. they take the path of least resistance and pummel the people they know about, the ones who pay regularly while avoiding the cases they know will take time and money to pursue. This is your problem... The internet is littered with examples of PWC not getting money from people who try to avoid paying and NRPs actually being driven to suicide because of blatantly fraudulent assessments and threats.

Its because of personal experience that i can say the following:
Actually nothing of what i said is 'far fetched' in the slightest and if you knew anything about how the CSA currently deals with NRPs you would know that. They are an organization that virtually has the power of God. Assessments are final and there is no realistic appeal. If you gave them the power to take into account an NRPs partners income or assets where do you think that would end? Would it just be those who would perhaps face court action today? Would it hell as like. It would be abused daily and yes, people could lose their house (or at least feel so under threat that relationships would end).

At one point i may have been included in your little group of non-payers. I bet the CSA would have treated me as such. When we split (case long closed now) i filled in the forms and sent them off. I got the assessment back (pretty much what i was expecting) but didnt know my ex got a copy too. A couple of weeks later i got a new assessment. This was for more than my actual net income. I later found out my ex had phoned them and disputed it. She made up a number that must have been about 4 times what i actually made. They believed her one phone call over my payslips. It got worse. because i couldnt pay they did a DEO. Then my employer couldnt pay what they asked for (because i didnt earn that much) so the arrears just kept building up. Pretty sure under your scheme at this point CSA would be looking at my partners income and assets (if i had one at the time). Eventually after a few months they corrected the assessment. Do you think they wrote off the arrears? did they f**k as like. According to them as they were acting on 'reliable' information that they took to be correct they assessment stood.

Your idea is based on a happy world where government agencies do the job they are supposed to and act lawfully and with common sense. That doesnt work in real life. Any world where an organization so full of lazy stupid morons like the CSA has the sorts of powers you describe is a world i would rather not live in.

I started this thread with the statement that I was speaking from my own circumstances, no one else's so I can understand yours now you have said what you said. I won't dispute a lot of what you say because this is your experience, and a hellish one it sounds.
I certainly won't dispute that the line of least resistance is followed. I do know something about NRP: I am one, for my eldest son. But his mother and I use the CSAs methods/calculations but do not use their service and have always done. But we are reasonable people who can get on.

I quite agree that it is when the CSA is confronted with blatant dishonesty then the wheels come off. How could they not? I also agree that phone calls, or anything, not backed up by fact should be given short shrift (in dealing with my youngest's mother, the NRP, anything I tell the CSA is backed up with facts, printouts, etc etc. But nothing ever seemed to happen) oh the glorious inconsistency.

I do dispute two things. I'm not sure the 'little group' of non-payers is as small as you might think; and if the CSA have God-like powers they seemed loath to use them (in MY experience, clearly NOT yours or others) I recall a phone call where a manager told me that court proceedings were on the go, her passport could be taken away, her driving licence suspended. Wow...progress at last!! Did this come to pass? Of course it didn't. Like you say, enforcement can be pitifully weak in some cases, but sledgehammer like elsewhere.
The Agency must work on facts...perhaps it is not their powers that are the problem it is the information, or lack of it, to which they have access. (When I had my case transferred to the CMS from the CSA I was told they would receive no information from the CSA...only the arrears amount and I spent a a half hour telling them all I knew of my ex, the NRP. Complete waste of time.)

However. I maintain my idea has legs in some circumstances, and is simpler than some of the procedures in place. But it does need a bit of common sense, access to basic information, and sensible sanctions for those who would lie or mislead, to apply and there the problem lies. I quite forgot I was dealing with a government department.

nannytone_2

Tammykitty wrote: »

My husband has a daughter who he doesn't see (Mother has constantly blocked access and for various reasons he eventually stopped pursuing), Child is now 14 so hopefully she will make contact on her own now and she can hear his side of the story.


Husband is self employed on low income and does pay Child Support, I make a reasonable salary, however I would very much resent my salary going to support someone I don't even know.


In saying that, we do have a bank account to save for daughter, and the savings to this do come out of the household budget, so in a way I am contributing, but that is different than being forced to contribute via CSA or whatever they are now called

a little advice ...
if your OH is lucky enough for his daughter to contact him, the WORST thing he could do ( and the quickest way for him to alienate his daughter) is to slag her mother off ....
all the !!!! that has gone on between the parents has NOTHING at all to do with the child, and to make her take sides would be unfair

Tammykitty

nannytone wrote: »

a little advice ...
if your OH is lucky enough for his daughter to contact him, the WORST thing he could do ( and the quickest way for him to alienate his daughter) is to slag her mother off ....
all the !!!! that has gone on between the parents has NOTHING at all to do with the child, and to make her take sides would be unfair

Telling his side does not mean slagging the mother - he will however make sure the child knows she has been thought about during the last 14 years - he has paid support, got a bank account for her, a scrapbook with cuttings about her from a local newspaper etc.
He has gone to school plays etc, although did not make himself known to the child.


This is what I mean by telling his side, not saying - your mum hates me, she is a cow etc.