Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2

Original poster

declaring you don't earn any thing to hide paying CSA a penny

41 replies

OnlyWantsOne · 12/08/2014 15:46

When you are in fact a director of a company that employs 10 full time members of staff, rent a £1300pcm home and drive 2 cars, take 2 foreign holidays a year and have a very active social life...

After yet another phone call with the CSA I am feeling bitter.

OP posts:

Darkesteyes · 12/08/2014 16:07

Welcome to our modern mysogynistic society where women are punished with poverty for daring to leave a bad relationship AND punished with the same result if HE leaves.

HowAboutNo · 12/08/2014 16:10

Unfortunately, I know someone in the same situation and the CSA have been useless! we've even sent links to his website, Facebook page, etc etc but NOTHING

It makes me so, so angry.

I'm sorry OP. You are, of course, not being unreasonable

mummymeister · 12/08/2014 16:11

write to your mp. tell them what the story is. sometimes they can put pressure on for something to be done. just do not understand how firstly men have the brass neck to do this and secondly how despite the fact that we are constantly told fraud is reducing it seems to still be so prevalent.

DaisyFlowerChain · 12/08/2014 16:14

Not technically true, it's only true if one of the two gives up work and relies on the other for financial support. Surely that choice is weighed up when you make it, nothing in life is guaranteed.

I suspect many are quite happy to use tax avoidance, dividends etc when it benefits them but then suddenly appear against it when it no longer works for them. If a NRP goes SE after to deny support, then of course they should be made to pay just as the RP should. Both made the child, both should support it.

MrsTerryPratchett · 12/08/2014 16:14

If I didn't feed or clothe my children I would get a visit from Social Services. Why are parents that don't live with their children and refuse to meet their needs not being treated like they are neglecting their children if they behave like they are?

grumpygoat79 · 12/08/2014 16:19

Such a simple solution... when they get their tax bill, there is a section that details what they owe their ex, then it's paid to the RP in monthly installments, just like tax... why none of teeny tiny brained (or rather, obtuse) MPs can figure this out is beyond me.

WildFlowersAttractBees · 12/08/2014 16:21

Hang on in there. I found out today, that after a DECADE, Ex will now be paying maintenance for DS and DD. He has not seen them for 8 years and only for a matter of hours in the 2 years before that. He has avoided making payments, declaring income etc but they are now arresting his earnings and backdating it to the tune of around £350 a month.

DaisyFlowerChain · 12/08/2014 16:41

MrsTerry, I agree social services should be involved but it would have to work both ways. There are plenty of RP that don't pay for their children (state does) so it's not just NRP that don't.

Original poster

OnlyWantsOne · 12/08/2014 16:48

I know how he's doing it. I've provided evidence and more evidence to the CSA yet they are stretched and can only do so much.

Ex gets to live the life he wants and play Disney dad.

So exhausted by it all.

OP posts:

MrsTerryPratchett · 12/08/2014 16:51

The state should pay when the parent can't, not when they won't. Here in Canada, people lose their licence and their tax refunds/wages, then their liberty if they don't pay. This should be seen as a child welfare issue. Maybe if we all called this child neglect, people wouldn't be so cavalier.

lacksdirection · 12/08/2014 16:55

grumpygoat Wouldn't that mean HMRC would have to join forces with the child maintenance team to enable this to work?

FraidyCat · 12/08/2014 17:07

Maybe we should have some sort of auction system for kids. Whoever is willing to pay the highest maintenance doesn't get them. So if OPs ex doesn't outbid the OP in a legally binding bid for the maintenance he would pay if he becomes NRP, he gets given the kids.

Negative bidding would be allowed, meaning instead of offering maintenance you could offer to pay the other person for the privilege of custody. In this presumably rarer scenario the NRP would not only pay no maintenance, they would get compensation for not having the
children.

So to summarise,

if both parents bid positive amounts, whoever bids the least gets custody, plus maintenance of the higher amount
if both parents bid negative amounts, whoever made the lowest (most negative) bid gets custody, the NRP pays no maintenance and gets paid compensation equivalent to the RP's bid
if one puts in a positive bid and one negative, the negative bidder gets custody, and maybe any payment is the sum of the two bids? So depending on the relevant amounts, the payment could go in either direction? (not sure, still need to think this through...)

(No I'm not really being serious, I just like designing rules...)

MuttonCadet · 12/08/2014 17:12

CSA tribunal is the way to go. The accountants there will get the information, and they do involve hmrc when it's clear that there are discrepancies.

redexpat · 12/08/2014 17:18

Wildflowers RESULT!

tohotnot · 12/08/2014 17:19

Keep on at the csa. it took 12 years of my ex ignoring their letters. But final they caught up with him. And he now has 230 a month taken from his wage. It makes a massive difference to mine and Ds life.

redexpat · 12/08/2014 17:20

Interesting to read about Canada - here in Denmark there is a similar set up. NRP has to pay, or the state pays, and then claims reimbursement from the NRP. Also if a father is denying that he is in fact the father and refuses a blood test, the police can escourt him to a clinic to have the test.

Original poster

OnlyWantsOne · 12/08/2014 17:23

He is currently paying the absolute minimum - calculated that he's self employed and living off tax credits.

OP posts:

Original poster

OnlyWantsOne · 12/08/2014 17:23

And that clearly isn't the case!!!

OP posts:

drivenbyyou · 12/08/2014 18:06

Same here, except CSA said that they can only go on what his tax return to HMRC says. According to their calculations, he can't even be making NMW. He owns his own company, employs at least one full time member of staff and others on a temp basis when it's busy.

I was told that it would be better to report him for tax evasion/fraud to 'get him that way' when I don't want to 'get him', I want him to be responsible for his children!

I also know how he gets round paying tax - I used to do the books before he left. Doesn't seem to make any difference. And the appeal because his lifestyle doesn't reflect his earnings doesn't mean a thing (has a number of horses, horse truck, sponsors various horse events, goes abroad, blah, blah). He must be a genius to afford that on less that MW.

Unfortunately don't know what the answer is, and no-one seems to care.

Mrsstarlord · 12/08/2014 18:20

Its not really that one sided.

DH left his home and kids because ex-wife had an affair with his best friend and moved him into the family home. DH paid maintenance from the day he moved out only to get a call from the CSA 10 years later asking him to pay maintenance through them, so he paid the same amount through them rather than face to face (makes no difference to him) but when ex-wife kicked out 15 year old daughter and he called CSA to let them know that she was living with us he was met with a barrage of abuse. The assumption being that because he is a father he is automatically trying to get out of paying - nonsense.
In fact 2 years later when DSS went to college ex-wife phoned DH to ask if he would officially state that he won't pay maintenance (whilst paying it cash in hand) so that she could claim EMA for son.

Not everything is a feminist battle, sometimes organisations and people are twats - no need for any wider agenda.

Mrsstarlord · 12/08/2014 18:21

Sorry, that was directed at darkest eyes - Rookie error :-)

atos35 · 12/08/2014 18:41

So if he is living that lifestyle how is he claiming tax credits? Surely that is benefit fraud, can you not tip off the HMRC and let them investigate?

fedupbutfine · 12/08/2014 18:47

I suspect many are quite happy to use tax avoidance, dividends etc when it benefits them but then suddenly appear against it when it no longer works for them

oh do fuck off and actually understand what it is you are talking about. Dividends, accounting within legal parameters etc. are of benefit to the small business owner and without these incentives, very few people would take the plunge at self employment. It is perfectly possible to be legal in your accounting and satisfy the stringent requirements of HMRC and not have to pay any child maintenance or child maintenance at a minimum whilst you earn a small fortune. The Law is, unfortunately, a poor fit in this regard and has nothing whatsoever to do with people being 'quite happy' with it in one respect and not in another.

OP - have you tried a variation? and have you asked dividends to be taken into account?

There are plenty of RP that don't pay for their children (state does) so it's not just NRP that don't

statistically, the majority of single parents work and are paying for their own children. Many single parents who remain on benefits long term do so because one or more of their children have a serious disability and therefore need full time care. Yet more still are in a transition period where the need to fall back on the benefit system because their ex walked out when they were at SAHM/committed suicide rendering the life insurance invalid/got run over by a bus before taking out life insurance but don't remain on benefits for any longer than they need to. But don't let those facts get in the way of your ignorance, will you?

AskBasil · 12/08/2014 18:47

Actually this is a feminist battle because 92% of resident parents are women, five years after divorce the average woman is poorer than she was when married while the average man is richer and financial abuse is so normal that 3/5 of lone parents get no maintenance at all while no-one recognises it for what it is - abuse.

A man who doesn't pay maintenance for his child, is an abusive father. If we didn't live in a patriarchy, everyone would know that.

Milmingebag · 12/08/2014 18:47

Actually this is a feminist battle. The people picking up the pieces and scraping by when NRPs refuse to support their children are predominantly women. These women not only have to shoulder the burden of care but also find the means to support children that two people brought into the world.

As a consequence their lives can be heavily compromised in terms of their career,long term financial security and personal happiness.

Not paying maintainance is child neglect and people who refuse to meet their responsibilities to their children should be criminalised. They should also be made to compensate the other parent who is doing their share as well as the NRP's.

Writing to your M.P. is about your best bet if asking for a departure has got you nowhere.

This government (and the previous one ) actually regards mothers and children as second class citizens- as is clearly demonstrated by the shambles that is the CSA.

It would be so easy to rectify but there is such resistant I can only attribute it to deeply ingrained misogyny.

Flip

1 2