National Insurance not paid by former husband

atush

if there was a business, there were Marital assets

And last I checked, you needed a financial settlement to divorce (final divorce)

i any case, if both were married and both were SP age before April 2016 they are under old rules. So she should get more SP due to his contributions,

Derek53

Maureen divorced him on the basis of 5 years separation. I can assure you that you don't need a financial settlement because she successfully completed the process without one. I don't know why you think there must have been marital assets. The work was tenancy of pubs, the assets of which all belong to the breweries. All that was left was her clothes which she took with her and furniture which wasn't worth taking. But yes, she is definitely being underpaid and should get a Cat B pension at the least.

cloud_dog

Just to be clear regarding the divorce, did she obtain a decree nisi or a decree absolute?

p00hsticks

Derek53 wrote: »

The question is, whether the DWP will agree that this entitles her to a full record on her own account and award her the 129.20, or will the response be that without concrete proof, tough luck, you'll get the Cat B pension and that's it.

It's not DWP you need to convince, it's HMRC.

DWP may pay the state pension, but they use the NI records from HMRC to work out the entitlement.

Personally while I sympathise with your wifes position I can't see you persuading HMRC to credit her with NI years purely on the say-so of witnesses who happened to see her working - to do so would open the floodgates for people to claim and make a mockery of the NI contribution system.

Apart from anything else, many married women who were properly employed back then only paid the reduced stamp that didn't entitle them to a pension in their own right anyhow.

xylophone

The trouble is that she has no evidence that she was employed by her husband.

In effect he could say that they were living over the shop as it were and she gave him a hand.

He earned the cash and she helped him spend it would be the line he would take?

I think that it would be very difficult to prove otherwise.

DairyQueen

Derek53 wrote: »

Maureen divorced him on the basis of 5 years separation. I can assure you that you don't need a financial settlement because she successfully completed the process without one.

You are correct. Divorce without a financial settlement is possible. However, until such time as the ex remarries (if he hasn't), he will have the opportunity to submit a claim against 'Maureen's' current/future assets. She, on the other hand, forewent the right to make a claim against him when she married you:
https://www.divorce-online.co.uk/blog/financial-settlement-in-divorce/. (Excuse the commercial link - it just happened to be one of many I found and I am not endorsing this company.)

It is very unwise to divorce without a court ordered financial settlement for this reason. I think you would benefit from an hour with a solicitor.

I also agree with others that Maureen will be hard-pressed to prove that she has been 'employed' by her husband. The info. you supplied suggests that the businesses through which she and her ex worked have no record of her having been employed or paid. She did not report income to HMRC nor make any legal complaint about her employment status/earnings at the time. Witness statements would not carry much/any weight.

Spouses assisting in such businesses were/are commonplace. Indeed, I worked without any 'official' renumeration for my ex's business some decades ago.

It's possible that she could make a claim for SP based on her ex's NI contributions as she appears to have been single at the time that she reached SP age (could anyone advise whether the waters have been muddied by the subsequent marriage?). However, it's also possible that her ex didn't pay employer/employee NI on his own behalf either.

Perhaps it would be better to draw a line under this difficult period in your wife's life. She has already paid a high emotional and financial cost for her previous choice of mate. The ex sounds like a nasty piece of work and he could make life very unpleasant for you both if he reappears and belatedly submits a financial claim. The cost of rousing those sleeping dogs may be very high when viewed against the infinitesimal chance of her claim for NI credits succeeding.

Derek53

DairyQueen wrote: »

You are correct. Divorce without a financial settlement is possible. However, until such time as the ex remarries (if he hasn't), he will have the opportunity to submit a claim against 'Maureen's' current/future assets. She, on the other hand, forewent the right to make a claim against him when she married you:
https://www.divorce-online.co.uk/blog/financial-settlement-in-divorce/. (Excuse the commercial link - it just happened to be one of many I found and I am not endorsing this company.)

It is very unwise to divorce without a court ordered financial settlement for this reason. I think you would benefit from an hour with a solicitor.

I also agree with others that Maureen will be hard-pressed to prove that she has been 'employed' by her husband. The info. you supplied suggests that the businesses through which she and her ex worked have no record of her having been employed or paid. She did not report income to HMRC nor make any legal complaint about her employment status/earnings at the time. Witness statements would not carry much/any weight.

Spouses assisting in such businesses were/are commonplace. Indeed, I worked without any 'official' renumeration for my ex's business some decades ago.

It's possible that she could make a claim for SP based on her ex's NI contributions as she appears to have been single at the time that she reached SP age (could anyone advise whether the waters have been muddied by the subsequent marriage?). However, it's also possible that her ex didn't pay employer/employee NI on his own behalf either.

Perhaps it would be better to draw a line under this difficult period in your wife's life. She has already paid a high emotional and financial cost for her previous choice of mate. The ex sounds like a nasty piece of work and he could make life very unpleasant for you both if he reappears and belatedly submits a financial claim. The cost of rousing those sleeping dogs may be very high when viewed against the infinitesimal chance of her claim for NI credits succeeding.

Thank you for this summary DQ and for the point re a possible future claim by the ex. You are quite right about him being a very unpleasant man indeed. In fact I doubt he is likely to make such a claim, though I can't go into my reasons for that here as they might identify us. However from what you and others have said, I think you are probably right that it's best to put the unpaid employment aspect behind us and just settle for the Cat B pension as anything else is looking unrealistic. Thanks also to everyone else who contributed.