CMS Payments, what effects them?
Comments
-
So in two months you haven't looked up the most fundamental principle - calculated on gross pay?i wasn't even aware of the CMS until i received a letter a couple of months ago from the CSA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I had NO say in the CMS being involved, and because the mother wouldn't even try to come to an arrangement with me through the CSA, i have to put up and shut up!!!!!!!!!
Anyway that aside - you're confused, the CSA transferred your case to the CMS. (it happens ALOT)
So you now know exactly how much you must pay, by law, for your children.
Pay it or they will add a collection fee and take it from your wages.
I think rather than 'put up and shut up', try 'man up' - why are you so opposed to supporting YOUR children?0 -
CSA has been steadily transferring cases over to CMS for probably a couple of years now. Its inevitable that you would be transferred at some point (unless your case is due to close before the CSA closes for good).
There really isnt any option here. CMS is the replacement for CSA. They have the same purpose and powers to make your life beyond hell. As far as i am aware there are only 2 ways to reduce your payments.
1: Die
2: Go self employed via a ltd company.
Also you need to be aware that if you get a pay rise they will recalculate. If you get a pay reduction they wont (unless it would reduce your payments by more than 25% and even then only after you get a full years tax records to prove it).0 -
CSA has been steadily transferring cases over to CMS for probably a couple of years now. Its inevitable that you would be transferred at some point (unless your case is due to close before the CSA closes for good).
There really isnt any option here. CMS is the replacement for CSA. They have the same purpose and powers to make your life beyond hell. As far as i am aware there are only 2 ways to reduce your payments.
1: Die
2: Go self employed via a ltd company.
Also you need to be aware that if you get a pay rise they will recalculate. If you get a pay reduction they wont (unless it would reduce your payments by more than 25% and even then only after you get a full years tax records to prove it).
Or pay what you should....0 -
It's all very well for people to say sell your home and move into a smaller place, it's not always that easy. In our case we needed space for the children to come and stay at weekends, a smaller place would not have allowed for that. Rental would have been more than the mortgage. We needed a decent car that would make the nearly 4 hour round trip to pick up the children safely, so we had outgoings for that. (Once we had our own children we also needed a bigger car that would accommodate 4 children). My husband was also paying off a joint loan which he and his ex took out - he was making the full repayments and the CSA didn't consider her share of that. We lived with hardly any spare cash for a number of years as the amount the CSA took crippled us. We were not spending our income frivolously, we had hardly any money to live once the bills had been paid, meanwhile the PWC had the house completely redone from top to bottom including the garden landscaping, new massive tv and a 3 week holiday to Disney Florida
(but according to the CSA's calculations she had nil income).
To add insult to injury had we been on the CSA 2 system according to the CSA's own calculator our liability would have been half what we are paying - how was that fair?
I'm afraid I can't offer any solutions, we tried every way to be allowed to pay a fair amount, including getting our mp involved, (we wanted to be transferred to the new system but were not allowed) we just had to struggle along, things are not so bad as they were now, as there is only one child still in the system (the liability didn't half when one child was taken off as may have been expected) but still sometimes there isn't much left at the end of the month and we are looking forward to the end of 2017 when our liability will come to an end - the remaining "child" will be nearly 20 by then !0 -
It's all very well for people to say sell your home and move into a smaller place, it's not always that easy. In our case we needed space for the children to come and stay at weekends, a smaller place would not have allowed for that. Rental would have been more than the mortgage. We needed a decent car that would make the nearly 4 hour round trip to pick up the children safely, so we had outgoings for that. (Once we had our own children we also needed a bigger car that would accommodate 4 children). My husband was also paying off a joint loan which he and his ex took out - he was making the full repayments and the CSA didn't consider her share of that. - that's up to him to pursue her civilly in the courts. We lived with hardly any spare cash for a number of years as the amount the CSA took crippled us. We were not spending our income frivolously, we had hardly any money to live once the bills had been paid, meanwhile the PWC had the house completely redone from top to bottom including the garden landscaping, new massive tv and a 3 week holiday to Disney Florida
(but according to the CSA's calculations she had nil income). - wouldn't make a difference if she had an income of 20million per hour.
To add insult to injury had we been on the CSA 2 system according to the CSA's own calculator our liability would have been half what we are paying - how was that fair?
I'm afraid I can't offer any solutions, we tried every way to be allowed to pay a fair amount, including getting our mp involved, (we wanted to be transferred to the new system but were not allowed) we just had to struggle along, things are not so bad as they were now, as there is only one child still in the system (the liability didn't half when one child was taken off as may have been expected) but still sometimes there isn't much left at the end of the month and we are looking forward to the end of 2017 when our liability will come to an end - the remaining "child" will be nearly 20 by then !
Whilst you have some valid points, they're children, and both parents should provide financial support0 -
I completely agree, so why did the CSA deem her to have nil income when she was working? Because she was getting child tax credit which is a benefit therefore the CSA said she was on benefits, and therefore didn't consider that she could contribute any amount at all to the maintenance needed.
My husband has never not provided financial support for his children, he has never ever missed a payment, but he would just have liked to have been asked to pay a fair amount which left him with some money left each month to have a reasonable standard of living himself. Seeing that if he'd been on CSA 2 he would have paid half the amount he was paying and that would have given him a better standard of living made it even harder.
Had he not got together with me I don't know how he would have managed financially, as I supported him during the early years when he was left with just his car and his clothes and the CSA payments didn't leave him with enough money to live on - some weekends he couldn't see his children because he couldn't afford the fuel for the 4 hour round trip.
Once we were together my home provided him with somewhere to bring his children so that he was able to keep regular contact with them, I fed him and gave him somewhere to stay so that he just about kept his head financially above water, and keep his job, but according to the CSA he had been left with enough money each month to live on, but I can assure you that wasn't the case, and as I said before he didn't smoke or drink, or spend the his money on luxuries. Thankfully we are many years down the line now and there is a light at the end of the tunnel, but not every NRP is fortunate to have someone there to support them both financially and emotionally through it all.0 -
This thread quite clearly demonstrates that there are some people who were much better off under the original 1993 scheme - as demonstrated by the op - and some who were much worse off - as demonstrated by 13Kent.
It also shows you don't get to choose which scheme you're on or when you get to move from one to the other to achieve the best financial outcome for yourself.
The government has introduced the successive new schemes to try to address issues of fairness raised by past parents, and also set out legal parameters as to when and how existing cases will move from one scheme to the other.
To the op, if it's unfair to you that you must pay more under the new scheme, wasn't it unfair to your ex that you paid less under the old one? How exactly are you arriving at your definition of fair?I often use a tablet to post, so sometimes my posts will have random letters inserted, or entirely the wrong word if autocorrect is trying to wind me up. Hopefully you'll still know what I mean.0 -
HoneyNutLoop wrote: »This thread quite clearly demonstrates that there are some people who were much better off under the original 1993 scheme - as demonstrated by the op - and some who were much worse off - as demonstrated by 13Kent.
It also shows you don't get to choose which scheme you're on or when you get to move from one to the other to achieve the best financial outcome for yourself.
The government has introduced the successive new schemes to try to address issues of fairness raised by past parents, and also set out legal parameters as to when and how existing cases will move from one scheme to the other.
To the op, if it's unfair to you that you must pay more under the new scheme, wasn't it unfair to your ex that you paid less under the old one? How exactly are you arriving at your definition of fair?
Hi, its more of the fact its gone from net to gross. As stated id happily pay the required amount, but its a massive change from net to gross, which, if we all knew that was going to be the case (like i said i had no idea the CMS existed until the csa told me) i wouldnt have taken out loans or whatnot.
Bit of an update, i have asked the CMS to speak to the mother on my behalf and put forward the case of going for family arrangement. Just waiting to hear back.0 -
The CMS system is fairer, but to be honest it comes down to a number of issues.I completely agree, so why did the CSA deem her to have nil income when she was working? Because she was getting child tax credit which is a benefit therefore the CSA said she was on benefits, and therefore didn't consider that she could contribute any amount at all to the maintenance needed. - No. Her income is totally excluded whether on benefits or not. He was not expected to support 100% of the cost.
My husband has never not provided financial support for his children, he has never ever missed a payment, but he would just have liked to have been asked to pay a fair amount which left him with some money left each month to have a reasonable standard of living himself. - that unfortunately is down to him to increase his income. Seeing that if he'd been on CSA 2 he would have paid half the amount he was paying and that would have given him a better standard of living made it even harder. - that I do agree with.
Had he not got together with me I don't know how he would have managed financially, as I supported him during the early years when he was left with just his car and his clothes and the CSA payments didn't leave him with enough money to live on - some weekends he couldn't see his children because he couldn't afford the fuel for the 4 hour round trip. - Why did he move 2 hours away? or did she move?
Once we were together my home provided him with somewhere to bring his children so that he was able to keep regular contact with them, I fed him and gave him somewhere to stay so that he just about kept his head financially above water, and keep his job, but according to the CSA he had been left with enough money each month to live on, but I can assure you that wasn't the case, and as I said before he didn't smoke or drink, or spend the his money on luxuries. Thankfully we are many years down the line now and there is a light at the end of the tunnel, but not every NRP is fortunate to have someone there to support them both financially and emotionally through it all.
Personal achievement being the most paramount0 -
You'll still need to pay the minimum though, just not the collect and pay extraHi, its more of the fact its gone from net to gross. As stated id happily pay the required amount, but its a massive change from net to gross, which, if we all knew that was going to be the case (like i said i had no idea the CMS existed until the csa told me) i wouldnt have taken out loans or whatnot.
Bit of an update, i have asked the CMS to speak to the mother on my behalf and put forward the case of going for family arrangement. Just waiting to hear back.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards