Advice please

Layla123456789

Hi, I've been split up from my husband for 14 years now, and 3 out of our 4 children have left home. He was paying a reasonable amount of child support for all the children until it was left with just our youngest who is 16. Four years ago he had one out of his two children who he had with another woman and this is when the maintenance money went downhill. My daughter lives with me in the week and on the odd occasion she would go to his for the weekend. It used to be every other weekend and now she rarely goes due to working near where we live. Her step mum is an accountant and clearly fiddles his earnings due to being self employed as he bought recently a brand new BMW. After the two other children were born, the second child being born two years ago, I received no maintenance money for a year. I decided to go through the csa and they claim that all he can afford is £14 a week to pay for her, that doesn't even cover her meals for the week, however the second yearly review has come through today and it's been cut down to £8 a week. This is disgusting, that wouldn't even get her a full meal from McDonald's or her £10 lunch money she gets for the week. My daughters step mother has exactly brought it down so it is exactly 25% less of what he said the first time so even less maintenance money for her. Secondly they are claiming she stays there for 104 nights which is every weekend for the whole year and this is incorrect even my daughter said that's not right, so it classes now as shared care so 2/7ths of the money goes back to him. I have rung the csa and claimed this is not right and they just said they will ring him again and ask. What am I meant to do? I have a low income and the csa said they cannot do anything about how much he pays, all they said was you can take him to court for fraud. However I'd never win as they wouldn't be able to prove she has changed the accounts as she ( step mum) is highly qualified in her job and wouldn't have made a mistake. If anyone has any advice please help?

WYSPECIAL

If you can't agree on the number of overnight stays then they will make an assumption of 52 nights per year and move it to the 1/7th band.

Could you come to a private agreement with your ex and ditch the CSA?

At least the end is in sight and you only have two years to go.

Fission

It is not necessarily the case that 1/7 shared care will be allowed. If the PWC can convince CMS that there is no shared care at all (or sufficiently less than 52 nights that it would not be right to assume 52 nights), the calculation will be made without a share care allowance.

Think about it. If 1/7 off were some sort of automatic minimum entitlement, it would be easier to administer it by just reducing the percentage(s) of gross income used as the assessment. For example, for one child, instead of £GROSS x 0.09, the calculation could simply be £GROSS x 0.09 ÷ 7 x 6.

WYSPECIAL

Fission wrote: »

It is not necessarily the case that 1/7 shared care will be allowed. If the PWC can convince CMS that there is no shared care at all (or sufficiently less than 52 nights that it would not be right to assume 52 nights), the calculation will be made without a share care allowance.

Think about it. If 1/7 off were some sort of automatic minimum entitlement, it would be easier to administer it by just reducing the percentage(s) of gross income used as the assessment. For example, for one child, instead of £GROSS x 0.09, the calculation could simply be £GROSS x 0.09 ÷ 7 x 6.

True but impression I have got in recent years is that unless there is absolute evidence one way or the other 1/7th is the easy option taken by the decision maker. It was clearer when the minimum for a reduction was 2/7th but then loads of NRP complained that it was restricting contact as the PWC carefully controlled it to stay under the threshold that triggered a reduction.

The problem is that where a system is imposed it will always lead to conflict and disagreement. If only all parents could reach an amicable and fair agreement for the benefit of their children between themselves without intervention.

Sambella

WYSPECIAL wrote: »

The problem is that where a system is imposed it will always lead to conflict and disagreement. If only all parents could reach an amicable and fair agreement for the benefit of their children between themselves without intervention.

agreement is nigh on impossible because without using the CMS calculation the resident parent always wants more. CMS for all its faults sets limits.

I read an interesting submission to parliament regarding CMS calculations which actually highlights a huge unfairness towards the non resident parent especially if they are on a low income :-

http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/work-and-pensions-committee/child-maintenance-services/written/39518.html

daddydodo

WYSPECIAL wrote: »

True but impression I have got in recent years is that unless there is absolute evidence one way or the other 1/7th is the easy option taken by the decision maker. .

No no no that isn't my experience of the CMS. As NRP I have the children well over the 52 night threshold. Do i get a 1/7 reduction? Nope. Why? Because PWC has told them the kids stay less than 52 nights/year. When I spoke to the CMS about this they explained that without a court order document to show as proof of shared care then they take the word of the PWC. Hands up everyone with a court order document lol...... in my case it was a mutual agreement with my ex... one night a week plus holidays.... so all you NRP's out there with shared care are at the mercy of your ex.... and fingers crossed doesn't want to award them selves a payrise via the CMS

Sambella

daddydodo wrote: »

No no no that isn't my experience of the CMS. As NRP I have the children well over the 52 night threshold. Do i get a 1/7 reduction? Nope. Why? Because PWC has told them the kids stay less than 52 nights/year. When I spoke to the CMS about this they explained that without a court order document to show as proof of shared care then they take the word of the PWC. Hands up everyone with a court order document lol...... in my case it was a mutual agreement with my ex... one night a week plus holidays.... so all you NRP's out there with shared care are at the mercy of your ex.... and fingers crossed doesn't want to award them selves a payrise via the CMS

This needs to be stopped. You should be allowed to evidence how often you have them else it i becomes simply a stick that the resident parent can beat you with.

Not having a court order should apply to them also.

Perhaps CMS should withhold calculating for a bit until the get an agreement from both parents telling the paying parent to put money aside until agreement is reached and a deadline set?

Only other option is to actually have the kids as per what she has told them ,say, 51 days. Only problem is that the kids lose out. Does money really matter to them that badly? I managed just fine without any maintenance!

Guest101

daddydodo wrote: »

No no no that isn't my experience of the CMS. As NRP I have the children well over the 52 night threshold. Do i get a 1/7 reduction? Nope. Why? Because PWC has told them the kids stay less than 52 nights/year. When I spoke to the CMS about this they explained that without a court order document to show as proof of shared care then they take the word of the PWC. Hands up everyone with a court order document lol...... in my case it was a mutual agreement with my ex... one night a week plus holidays.... so all you NRP's out there with shared care are at the mercy of your ex.... and fingers crossed doesn't want to award them selves a payrise via the CMS

C1, C100 + £300ish = I don't see the issue?

daddydodo

Guest101 wrote: »

C1, C100 + £300ish = I don't see the issue?

Thank you, I wasn't aware of this or the process. I will check out the details to apply for shared care.

Guest101

daddydodo wrote: »

Thank you, I wasn't aware of this or the process. I will check out the details to apply for shared care.

You apply for a child arrangement order, shared care isn't a 'thing'