CSA calculation - is this right?

[ticklemonster123]

DH's ex went to CSA asking them to recalculate his payments as she believed he'd got a pay rise. He hadn't, he's now in a more senior position but he no longer earns commission so he still earns a pretty similar salary.
He was asked to send his last two payslips, which he did, and now he's had the letter through saying his payments have gone down.
I've looked at the figures and they've calculated the figure based on his net salary, after childcare vouchers have been taken off.
Is that right?
He wasn't getting childcare vouchers the last time they assessed his payments, plus he now has a company car which comes off his tax and he puts more in to his pension so his take home pay is significantly less than it was previously, but his annual salary is roughly the same.

I think DH will probably just continue paying the original amount, after all he isn't actually earning less, but I just wondered whether it is right that they're working it out based on the figure after the childcare vouchers have come off his pay?

[sanityseeker75]

But he is bringing home less. I may well get flamed for this so will grab the extinguisher now....

She went to CSA to get more money because she believed she was being short changed rather than asking.

She has come unstuck

I would now pay the reduction on principle - but I am feeling a bit of a bitch today tbh.

[rosepetalsoup]

I would too - it is a fair calculation. The reason they exclude childcare vouchers is because they represent increased expenditure at your end! Pay the new figure.

[WiggleGinger]

Fgs
She's shot herself in the foot!
Pay the lower amount!

[CountingThePennies]

I would pay the new calculation

Serves her right

[ticklemonster123]

I agree it does serve her right, especially as she denied going to the CSA except the letter said ''we have been informed that there may have been a change in your circumstances''. What a tit for lying!

But she is a difficult woman, it might cause more trouble than it's worth to pay the reduced figure.
It's DH's decision to make, I'm not going to be the wicked SM telling him to pay the new amount. But secretly I think it would serve her right for running to CSA and lying about it.

[WaxOnWaxOff]

If I were him I'd be tempted to pay the new lower amount to teach her a lesson but put the difference into a savings account for the children or spend it on them when they're with you.

[HSMMaCM]

He could pay her the reduced amount and set up a savings fund or trust or pension in his dc names, to show he is still committed to them. Would his dc miss out if he reduces the amount?

[Storm15]

Yep, another vote for paying the lower amount. Silly woman.

[Foxeym]

My partners ex did this as well and our wages had gone down but we had continued to pay the old amount. When the new assessment came through we paid what they said, she didn't like it but there you go for being greedy!

[Sethspeaks]

If you think the higher amount is the correct figure then just continue paying that. Maintenance isn't for his ex, it's for the children.

It was a reasonable assumption of hers that if he had a promotion then more maintenance might be payable.
This should be solely about what will be best for the children. The Csa amount is the minimum payable. If he was happy with the higher amount, it will be so much better for the children not to have aggro between their parents if this is going to raise hackles.

Even if she's the type to do something like this spitefully, it isn't fair on the children if their income is going to drop.

It would help if he were able to be open with her about his earnings, and keep her updated about changes so she can see he is being fair.

[BaronessEllaSaturday]

With regards to what you actually asked yes the CSA calculate on net income so increasing his pension payments will reduce the calculation, the company car will also reduce the calculation and the childcare vouchers will do the same too. The system is changing so it will start to be worked out on gross less pension payments but that is when it moves over to the new system of CMO. Whether it is fair that her maintenance is reduced due to benefits that your husband gets is up to his conscience but he is perfectly entitled to pay the lower amount.

[DrinkFeckArseGirls]

I can't believe the posters encouraging the OO's DH to pay less, even though he doesn't want to. Do you all have an axe to grind?

[yellowdaisies]

I'd leave him paying the same, but make sure the ex knows that he's now paying her more than the CSA amount, eg pay the CSA amount and the extra in two separate payments.

[pootlebug]

I would go for paying the CSA amount, and putting the difference between old and new payments into savings accounts for the kids.

[SoonToBeSix]

Maintenance is for the children's current needs not for their savings! Am shocked at some of the posters.

[Azquilith]

I'd pay less but put the rest in savings. Well actually I wouldn't (and haven't when we had a similar situation) but I would have liked to.

[KellyElly]

It won't serve her right, the money if for his children! What the fuck sort of attitudes are there on this thread?!

[ticklemonster123]

To answer some of the questions - needaholiday no there were no holidays or anything, she'd emailed DH at work and when he replied it had his signature with his new job title on it, which tbh sounds a lot grander than it actually is. She replied saying "congratulations on your promotion", I'd have a lot more respect for her if she'd just asked if it meant he was now earning more or admitted that she was asking CSA to recalculate his payments.

His ex is on a very good wage, she's on about 15k more than DH and she has a partner but I've no idea what kind of income he is on. But they have 2 decent wages, their joint income is probably double ours (I only work part time).
She is just very greedy.
DH would happily pay her the original figure if he felt that the money was being spent on the DCs but there's little evidence of it.
They often arrive with us looking like nobody owns them, in clothes that don't fit or are just cheap and nasty, DSD hasn't been to the hairdressers in probably about a year. They rarely get taken on days outs or on holidays.
However their mum has an extensive collection of nice clothes, designer handbags, shoes etc..forever in the local beauty salon having her spray tan done, false nails, this and that plucked&waxed etc.
They're housing isn't what you'd expect from a couple who earn what they do either.
So it does make you wonder exactly how much of what DH pays actually gets spent on the DCs and how much goes on her shoes.
But there's not much we can do about that.

The letter only came from the CSA this morning so DH has hardly had chance to think about it yet.

IMHO I don't really think it's fair to reduce the amount because of childcare vouchers and cars as they are benefits.
So if we didn't have a company car we'd be paying £££'s every month for a car on finance. We're actually saving money by having a company car.
The same with childcare vouchers, we're saving money by not paying tax on the vouchers, if we didn't use that benefit we'd still be paying for childcare out of DH's net income. Doesn't really seem right that we should save money twice by not paying tax AND having it deducted off the amount the ex can claim a share of. IYKWIM?

But I can't stand the money grabbing cow so if DH wants to pay her the lesser amount then I won't stand in his way.

The difference isn't huge anyway, I think it works out at about £40-50pcm. Which is why I think DH would probably rather just carry on paying her the original amount, it's not worth an argument or the risk of her being difficult about contact for the sake of £50.
My question was mainly to find out if it had been worked out right x

[LadySybilLikesSloeGin]

Lots of 'serves her right' Maintenance is for the child, not for her. If he can afford to pay more than the minimum amount then he should, the CSA award is a minimum and he can pay more if he's happy to. Whether she's a 'money grabbing cow' is irrelevant, maybe she just wanted a fair amount of maintenance for their child

I'm a 'money grabbing cow' by the way. ALL of the maintenance (and then some) I receive is spent on ds. I had to take my ex to court to get it increased after he fled the UK, landed a higher paid job and refused to increase it. In the mean time I developed rickets as I gave ds the decent food and I lived on toast. I was over the moon when the court almost doubled it as I could eat. Does that make me a 'money grabbing cow'? Some very nasty attitudes on here.

[Thisismyfirsttime]

If the dc's are coming to you as you say and need new clothes/ shoes/ don't often have days out perhaps DH could consider paying the reduced amount and putting the rest aside to buy them things, take them on trips etc while they're with you? On a rolling basis, so they have new clothes etc regularly to take home and anything left over for trips often rather than putting it in savings for when they're older?

[LadySybilLikesSloeGin]

So? It's not for her, it's for their child. If he can afford to pay more to support his child then he should.

I wouldn't believe my ex either, experience has told me that he's full of shit so unless I see proof with my own eyes I won't believe a word that comes out of his mouth. The fact that she went to the CSA is irrelevant, the only person this harms is his child.

[ticklemonster123]

lady but you needed the money, she is considerably better off than we are but is still out to rinse DH for every single penny she can get. There's been other things happened in the past that give me reason to call her a 'money grabbing cow' eg trying to fraudulently claim PPI compensation on their JOINT loans.