Ex has left job and now has ‘nil’ CMS to pay?

kimplus8

3 months ago I had a letter from the CMS to say that my daughters award had changed to ‘nil’ per week due to a change in the paying parents circumstances. I phoned them and the lady said that he has no income so doesn’t have to pay.
I raised a complaint and said that he must be living off something, he hasn’t just left his job with nothing to go to or how would he eat/live. Apparently he isn’t earning and also isn’t on benefits. I phoned again yesterday and they said they have written to him asking for him to provide evidence as to how he is supporting himself if he allegedly has no form of income to support his cost of living, but he hasn’t replied. Is there anything else they can do? Can the check with HMRC/ Benefits to see if he is working or claiming or does this automatically get updated if/ when he starts work or claims benefits? 

I’m so cross as this just makes no sense. 

TIA

jjj1980

Is there any chance he is being financially supported by a partner or relative?

CMS will be making checks with DWP/HMRC for benefit claims but it can take time for the records to show the claim being “in payment”

My ex did the same thing for a while; was supposedly being supported by relatives so didn’t make a JSA claim.  He knew from the years previous that payments would be deducted direct from his benefit so did all he could to avoid claiming. 

The way the assessment for CMS works is all based on the PP’s earnings so if they aren’t earnings an income and have no relevant benefit in-payment, there is. Irving to base an assessment on.  Meaning no child support payment due.

tightauldgit

If he has no earnings then he has no income and the correct amount to pay is 'nil' - it's fairly typical for someone who leaves a job not to have any income for a period. 

He may well have savings that he is living off, especially if he isn't claiming benefits it suggests he probably does. But that's not income. 

If he claims benefits CMS get automatically updated (it may take a while to filter through the system but the award should be from the date he started claiming). I don't think that a new employer does get automatically added (I could be wrong) but it's his responsibility to report a change in circumstances - if its PAYE then I think they do check to see what he is earning tallies with what he has claimed.

If he starts self-employment its rather more complicated as there won't be any tax record until he submits his first self-assessment (which could be the end of 2023) and they have to go on what he tells them. 

tightauldgit

jjj1980 said:

Is there any chance he is being financially supported by a partner or relative?

CMS will be making checks with DWP/HMRC for benefit claims but it can take time for the records to show the claim being “in payment”

My ex did the same thing for a while; was supposedly being supported by relatives so didn’t make a JSA claim.  He knew from the years previous that payments would be deducted direct from his benefit so did all he could to avoid claiming. 

The way the assessment for CMS works is all based on the PP’s earnings so if they aren’t earnings an income and have no relevant benefit in-payment, there is. Irving to base an assessment on.  Meaning no child support payment due.

It would be pretty stupid not to claim benefits to avoid paying child maintenance since the child maintenance amount is fairly trivial when you're on benefits. If that's what he did, all he did was cost himself money.

Spendless

Has he got a new partner who is working? My friend's ex did that one. After redundancy he became a stay at home Dad to his new wife's child from her first marriage and remained not working until his 2 son's with my friend were adults, so didn't pay any maintenance.  

badmemory

I'm guessing he very rarely sees his daughter & birthday & christmas presents rarely exist.  I am afraid that this is what "they" do.  Well some that really don't have any sense of responsibility.  Some do actually pay over the odds & are even involved in their childrens life.  But some of them seem to be able to turn off their children like turning off a tap.  Sorry you have got stuck with one like that.  I hope you will come to realise like me that actually you are better off not being in any way dependent on him.  It worked wonders for me (once I hammered down expenses).

jjj1980

tightauldgit said:

jjj1980 said:

Is there any chance he is being financially supported by a partner or relative?

CMS will be making checks with DWP/HMRC for benefit claims but it can take time for the records to show the claim being “in payment”

My ex did the same thing for a while; was supposedly being supported by relatives so didn’t make a JSA claim.  He knew from the years previous that payments would be deducted direct from his benefit so did all he could to avoid claiming. 

The way the assessment for CMS works is all based on the PP’s earnings so if they aren’t earnings an income and have no relevant benefit in-payment, there is. Irving to base an assessment on.  Meaning no child support payment due.

It would be pretty stupid not to claim benefits to avoid paying child maintenance since the child maintenance amount is fairly trivial when you're on benefits. If that's what he did, all he did was cost himself money.

I agree, it’s very stupid.  It is what my ex did though.  Also closed down all his own bank accounts so CMS couldn’t trace any money in his name, will only work cash-in-hand self-employed work so there is no money moving via transfers etc.  bailiffs have confirmed he has receipts for everything showing his mother’s details so nothing in his name.  As you say, only causing himself more cost in acting this way.  

kimplus8

They phoned me yesterday evening and said he hasn’t responded to their letter by the deadline but there is nothing they can do. He has no job, he has no benefits so they can’t even collect the arrears he owes. It’s wholly unfair but I will just have to accept it I suppose and move on. 

Twixty3

I disagree that it’s a trivial amount when your income is likely only to be £77 a week and is a rate for a single adult WITHOUT children.  That’s very close to destitution. 

Real single adults without children don’t pay it. So a non resident parent is not their equal. 

There is no such thing as a non resident parent on the benefit system so their needs can never be met. Clearly they have costs a single person without children does not have. 

If he did have his kids say, two days a week on this income would their poverty when with him not be absolute ? 

As the NAO says, ‘it was never Intended  that people on such low incomes should pay it’

In 2023 it will be 25 years:-

‘’This is compounded by outdated minimum income thresholds for the payment of child maintenance which were set in 1998. Unlike many countries, the UK has no “self-support” reserve factored into calculations; instead, minimum income thresholds for payment are set out in legislation which is now twenty years out of date. There has been no adjustment to take into account inflation over that period. This means paying parents are no longer able to maintain the standard of living they were initially intended (in law) to have and many face financial hardship.‘’

So for these fathers things have actually gone backwards.  That’s not progress towards ending poverty. 

tightauldgit

badmemory said:

I'm guessing he very rarely sees his daughter & birthday & christmas presents rarely exist.  I am afraid that this is what "they" do.  Well some that really don't have any sense of responsibility.  Some do actually pay over the odds & are even involved in their childrens life.  But some of them seem to be able to turn off their children like turning off a tap.  Sorry you have got stuck with one like that.  I hope you will come to realise like me that actually you are better off not being in any way dependent on him.  It worked wonders for me (once I hammered down expenses).

That's a pretty big leap from 'my ex only pays what he is legally obligated to pay in child maintenance' to 'i bet he doesn't care about his kids at all' - I spend three days a week with my daughter, buy her birthday and christmas gifts, take her on regular holidays, and buy things she needs for school or whatever. But I don't pay more than I am obligated to pay by CMS and when I had no income during COVID I paid £0 because that's what I was required to pay. 

tightauldgit

Twixty3 said:

I disagree that it’s a trivial amount when your income is likely only to be £77 a week and is a rate for a single adult WITHOUT children.  That’s very close to destitution. 

Real single adults without children don’t pay it. So a non resident parent is not their equal. 

There is no such thing as a non resident parent on the benefit system so their needs can never be met. Clearly they have costs a single person without children does not have. 

If he did have his kids say, two days a week on this income would their poverty when with him not be absolute ? 

As the NAO says, ‘it was never Intended  that people on such low incomes should pay it’

In 2023 it will be 25 years:-

‘’This is compounded by outdated minimum income thresholds for the payment of child maintenance which were set in 1998. Unlike many countries, the UK has no “self-support” reserve factored into calculations; instead, minimum income thresholds for payment are set out in legislation which is now twenty years out of date. There has been no adjustment to take into account inflation over that period. This means paying parents are no longer able to maintain the standard of living they were initially intended (in law) to have and many face financial hardship.‘’

So for these fathers things have actually gone backwards.  That’s not progress towards ending poverty. 

It's a relatively trivial amount in the big scheme of things - and when I was recently on benefits in fact I was required to pay £0 during that period. But even at £7 a week it's certainly not sensible to forgo your £77 a week in order to not have to pay the £7. Someone in that situation obviously must not need the £77 quid a week in the first place and could in fact afford to pay a lot more than £7 a week obviously. Either that or they were working and not declaring the income which would be worse still.