would it be illegal to get CB paid to my ex?

[MsIngaFewmarbles]

just a thought.

I have 2 DC from my previous marriage and one from my current one. Could I ask my ex to have CB paid to him so DH doesn't get clobbered on tax because I receive CB for MY 2 DC?

The OP doesn't work and said (at first) the ex was going to claim it and give it to her, not do as he pleased. That is fraud. She is still receiving CB even though she is not entitled, in that situation.

I find it so depressing that people are floundering about looking for sneaky ways to get the government to pay for their kids "extra curricular activities" and they really genuinely think that they are terribly hard done by.

If the ex is claiming it, does that mean the contributions made on the OPs behalf, will stop?. As I understand it if she kept claiming, contributions would continue but the cb amount would be take from her DH. In the OPs plan they would stop, is that correct?

It's not fraud if he just ups his maintenance payment. If he is legally entitled to claim CB, do you think there is some law that then stops him from giving money to the mother of his children? Of course not!

Op has already said her ex could use it to pay for the children's activities, or pay for their uniforms. Or is that going to be classed as fraud too by people that can't stand anyone having a reasonably comfortable life?

AThing I am going to C&P every one of your posts and use them in an ongoing argument I'm having with a friend about CB because you have articulated my opinion better than I could - thank you

Op has already said her ex could use it to pay for the children's activities, or pay for their uniforms. Or is that going to be classed as fraud too by people that can't stand anyone having a reasonably comfortable life?

I don't think it's fair to say that Outraged. Before I get shouted down, I agree wholeheartedly with many of the points ATruth has made, but I think what is getting people worked up is that people who do 'have a reasonably comfortable life' are getting very worked up at losing money which in this case pays for extra curricular activities.

There are some families I know of whose children have attended school on alternate days as they have one uniform between two. These same children were 'allowed' (ie staff turned a blind eye) to stay inside during lunch and break times as they continued to share a coat even when they had been provided with a uniform each

If people like that get upset with someone earning £££s more than them whining about the loss of CB then who would blame them?

I'm not sure I could.

I thought it was fraud, but I accept I was wrong. I don't have a problem with how the OP lives her life or spends her money. I'm just trying to show you that valid opinions come from all sides of the argument - not just yours.

athing I don't know why you are focussing on my comments particularly or why you feel the necessity to be making such personal comments about my character, about which you know nothing.

My points are not as you have framed them. I'm really not an "I'm alright jack" kind if person at all. I have not gloated.

I work with families who live in real poverty - who can't get work because there is none - who's children do not get
basic clothing, food and shelter.

That's why I find it very difficult to comprehend the onslaught of complaints from people who will lose CB and for whom the gross effect will be the loss of some luxuries in order to continue to provide extra curricular activities for their kids

I don't think there's anything smug or bitter about that.

I do get that it's not nice when your incom reduces - but what we nee to really worry about ar those who are the most vulnerable in society who's benefits are being cut - not those on £60k plus salaries who can afford their own home etc.

I think the type of people you mention have every right to complain about their own situation, and if it upsets them to hear about other people having more than they do and then complaining about the loss of CB, that's what the hide function is for.

I don't think it's ok for someone to come on here and berate another person for questioning their own situation and it's difficulties. MN is for parents, and parents come in all income brackets. It is not her just to make poor people feel better. One is not more entitled to voice their concerns than another, and one persons complaint is just as valid as another persons complaint if it worries them.

I can understand someone getting upset at hearing another complain that their child can no longer have horse riding lessons when their children don't even have a coat each, but they have the right to ignore the thread, they don't have the right to make out that an OP is trying to commit fraud or do something morally wrong.

This thread -and their ilk- are funny; it's like a million middle-class people are threatening to turn into Frank from Shameless. 'How can I get round this. How can I get round that?' 'Is there a loophole?' 'If I claim me and the man -I -live- with- and -share- a- child -and- a -mortgage -with-a -cat -and -a- dog are just flatmates, will the binifits twonks twig?' Priceless. Amazing really because none of my family who will lose out would ever dream of doing what the opening poster is proposing.

OP, yes it would be fraud.
No, the welfare state ain't for extra- cirricular activities.

I, For one, am not 'berating'. The OP asked and I gave my opinion. Based on her original statement which was that her ex was going to claim and give it to her. Which is, imo, fraud. As she is receiving money she is not entitled to. Personally I think the changes are quite unfair. But they are here.

It's not fraud. He is their father, he can legally claim it and spend it on the children as you normally would. I don't have a problem with that.

Except, Outraged, that this is AIBU. If a person only wants one answer they shouldn't post here, it is a place here a variety of opinions is expressed.

I thought it had to be payable to the main carer?

CB is for children and yo help cover the extra costs incurred whilst raising them. The activities (in case anyone is interested) are instrunent lessons at school, brownies and karate which also double as childcare whilst I'm at college.

I've never said its the end of the world, I'm not that stupid or selfish. I have said before, and I'll say it again that I am well aware that there are people in far worse positions than we are. I just don't see why my DC should be worse off when they don't need to be, hence the idea of their Dad getting CB rather than us not.

"I do get that it's not nice when your incom reduces - but what we nee to really worry about ar those who are the most vulnerable in society who's benefits are being cut - not those on £60k plus salaries who can afford their own home etc."

No, what we really need to worry about is the dismantling of the welfare state through the erosion of the social contract through attacks on universal benefits like this one.

Do you think the families you work with (and I have worked with children from families like that) will be better off in a welfare state with a strong universal benefits system? Or in a country that thinks entitlement is a dirty word, and the poor should come cap in hand looking for handouts from the meshed amount of tax collected?

That's the point though, originally, he was going to give it to the OP.

Sorry, but while I think some benefits should be universal-jobseekers' allowance being one of them, as the state should help people access schemes to get back to work, if you think that a family of HRT-ers should get child benefit so that little Johnny can go horse-riding, you really ought to think again.

Anyway, I'll say this: the opening poster's dh has obviously worked quite hard -as do most people who are HRT-ers. If I were him, and she suggested that I should risk my hard-earned job and professional reputation for the sake of a few bloody horse-riding lessons, well,to be polite about this, it would be very much a case of 'go away and think again!'.

its not sodding horseriding

Whatever it is for, my point remains: nobody who is wary of maintaining a professional reputation that they have worked hard for is going to risk it for what to them is not very much money at all, not worth the candle.

Now if they are 100% certain that they can somehow claim it totally legitimately, it would be different. But to get involved in dodgy behaviour when your reputation is at sake for a reward that is not worth writing home about?! Nothing to do with morality, it would just be stupidity.

I don't think that the opening poster is the one with a repuation at stake

"instrunent lessons at school, brownies and karate which also double as childcare whilst I'm at college."

Why should the government pay for those for your kids?

Why is OP's husband risking his professional reputation?

Didn't someone post a link to DirectGiv showing that op's xh could receive the money instead?

So why is it dodgy? Or am I misunderstanding?

DirectGiv

freudian slip MrFluffy

See how divisive this removal of a universal benefit is? they have removed the stake in society that was very visible to all parents.

We (4 kids, 1 by vanished exdh) will lose ours. So my dh will carry on paying for his non bio dc, and we can't get round that. Other people will be able to change who receives it/ not take mainteneance into account etc etc and keep it. Already I am too busy being worried about losing £242 from Jan (and my job) to care that much about people with reduced tax credits or granny taxes.

And I am not like that usually. Divide and rule...

Of course he would be risking his reputation -unless it is 100% safe for the opening poster to claim CB- rumours spread fast: and nobody who is a HRT-er will want to have a partner who is being accused of fraud. You just don't need hassle like that.