can i fight against variation appeal by NRP?

nem25

Not content with having halved the maintenance by paying over £1,500 (!!)monthly into his pension scheme so as to pay me less money, my ex-partner has now applied for a variation to further lower his payments and help towards his travelling costs when collecting/dropping off our children. He is constantly telling them that he has no money to buy them any "extras" (although he earns £45K pa), that he is overdrawn and, when challenged by his own son, says that all the money he made from the sale of our former home (130K) is blocked on an account to which he has no access...
what are his chances of winning and what can i do to fight against this latest ploy to yet again lower his maintenance?
Thanks in advance

kelloggs36

You can try to appeal on the grounds of him depriving himself of the money in order to reduce his payments to you - you will need to be able to show that the extra payments paid into his pension fund is to avoid paying you - did he start to do this shortly after getting a new assessment? If so, then this is a good argument. YOu could also argue that £1500 per month into a pension is excessive when it means that your son has to go without. How far away do you live from each other? What is the amount of his claim? Does he have your son overnight? If so, he can't have a reduction for high contact costs if he also gets shared care. Do you have his reasons?

nem25

Hi Kelloggs36 - i was hoping to get a reply from you so thank you very much! Yes, he upped his payments the same month that i warned him i was going to turn to the CSA as his payments were mood-dependent... he went from £300 to £1000 then topped them up again. He has on numerous occasions threatened that soon he would put himself in a situation where he would not earn anything anymore so i would get "zero maintenance" - i have got this in writing from him. We do live far apart - over 100 miles (i moved as he was messing me and the children around with contact). He does now have our 2 children every other week-end (only since the beginning of this year despite our splitting up more than 2 yrs ago) so i'm not sure this amounts to shared care - but he's already got the 1/7 discount. He's claiming for half his train fares because I refuse to travel halfway. I think having halved his maintenance, it's a bit much to then expect me to drive so that he does not have to do all the travelling - am i really being unreasonable?

kelloggs36

Well, he DOES have a discount for shared care, so he can't have both!!!! You have evidence of his intentions - keep this. You need to appeal against the assessment itself aswell - when was the assessment made? No I don't think you are being unreasonable - what will be considered however, are the legal possibilities.

nem25

Originally in Nov 06 but I never got the amount stated because he went to appeal straight away - and won!!! (I could not go to the hearing due to its time and location, as well as child care issues). The maintenance is taken straight out of his salary as he was refusing to send the CSA the required documentation. - Does that mean that they get the right amount every month even if he's had a salary rise (which is quite probable)?
If he's got a chance to pay less maintenance through a variation rather than with the shared care discount, then he'll definitely opt for that.

I meticulously looked through the articles of law regarding child support (new system) and found little ground on to which I could attack him - I thought that the "diversion of income" could be a possibility but he'll be able to say that the money he has is to be used for the purchase/build of a new home.

What do you mean by "legal possibilities"? That sounds worrying...

Another big bone to pick with the CSA: where is fairness in the regulation that states that a parent will be entitled to pay less money for the upbringing of their children because they now have to pay towards step-children - whose own NRP's maintenance is also lowered?? This absurd rule leaves the PWC without a new partner the sole loser... Outrageous! Not to mention what that does to the "left out" children, who will think that the NRP is now giving their money to somebody else's children, while they lose out... what good does that do to their self-esteem? - so to protect my children, I've not told them what their dad did... (neither that nor any of the rest...)