Is there a rule of CSA that revokes Section 9 of the Limitation Act

Guest101

Starduster wrote: »

That isn't going to work.

Back in 2009, it was a bit of a fad for people of wealth to put all their assets and property into a "Family Protection Trust". It ringfenced everything over to trustees.

It offers protection from statutory liabilities such as care home fees and the effects of divorce. It ensures my estate passes to my children and is not disinherited sideways while allowing me lifetime use.

It means during my life, I don't actually own my estate. It is already owned by my beneficiaries who are the (some) of the trustees.

Pension companies do the same and that is why a pension pot does not count towards a deceased estate. The policy holder doesn't own it.

Setting up my finances in this way was nothing to do with CSA, but it would appear to have inherent protective benefits.

So you are mortgage free? Otherwise that trust is worthless

Starduster

Under what regulation is that?

Guest101

Starduster wrote: »

Under what regulation is that?

I'm not fully foliage with these trusts, but I know that having a mortgage makes many invalid. Speak to a financial advisor.

Starduster

I'm not mortgaged but I acknowledge your comment and will revert back once I have sought legal advice.

Starduster

Guest101 wrote:

So you are mortgage free? Otherwise that trust is worthless

Can you provide the source for your advice?

If you want to retract your statement then please let me know.

clearingout

Do your children not need a roof over their heads and food in their bellies even if their father is 'excluded' rather than 'absent'?

Two wrongs don't make a right, do they? Pay the maintenance. At least then you can say you didn't purposely let them go without.

HappyMJ

clearingout wrote: »

Do your children not need a roof over their heads and food in their bellies even if their father is 'excluded' rather than 'absent'?

Two wrongs don't make a right, do they? Pay the maintenance. At least then you can say you didn't purposely let them go without.

I think the OP's point of view is the roof has already been provided by the other parent and the new partner, if they couldn't afford a roof then the council would have paid for the roof through housing benefit and HMRC would have paid enough in child tax credits to put food on the table so why should they now pay.....but that's not what CM is for.

A child will not go without "needs" such as housing and food without CM being paid. They would have gone without "wants"...i.e no computer, no tablet, no bicycle, no holidays etc...

I'm assuming the children are now adult children and the OP assumes the other parent would just be pocketing the money and the money would not benefit the children now.

Starduster

clearingout wrote: »

Do your children not need a roof over their heads and food in their bellies even if their father is 'excluded' rather than 'absent'?

Two wrongs don't make a right, do they? Pay the maintenance. At least then you can say you didn't purposely let them go without.

What are the two wrongs in this case?

Its mentality like this that creates the problem.

Starduster

HappyMJ wrote: »

I'm assuming the children are now adult children and the OP assumes the other parent would just be pocketing the money and the money would not benefit the children now.

I didn't give the background. That was intentional.

My question was about the Limitation Act 1980. Nothing about morals and feelings on whether money should be paid or not regardless of what the law says.

Starduster

I think we have the most definitive answer we are looking for.

The CSA has racked up a debt that cannot be enforced. So it's stuck with it. Its solution is to spend taxpayers money on a machine churning out brown envelopes.

I am rather concerned we had an internet lawyer on this thread who is under a belief a Family Protection Trust is worthless if a property was mortgaged. To the less-informed, that advice could have resulted in substantial loss from seeking expensive legal advice.

I took the liberty of looking through some of the commentators posting histories. There is evidence that moneysaving is the general theme of this forum. The exception is child support which is focused on exposing NRPs to financial loss even if that advice contradicts CS regulations.

I have no qualms in telling you that I found CSA staff highly evasive and defensive in their manner. It was as if the CSA is a government agency full of misandrists.