AIBU to think that maintenance SHOULD affect benefit entitlement?

[IJustCantBelieveIt]

Don't want to drip feed, but don't want to go on and on.

My dh and I have been together for 4 years (married for 2) he has a 7 year old ds from a previous relationship. He has always paid maintenance, even though his ex is very difficult with contact. When we met, it was £53 a week. It is now £78 a week (these are based off of the statutory amounts, but elevated a little) We don't have a problem with paying. It is after all his ds.

His ex has had 2 more dc since they split, both have different fathers, who she is also no longer with. She works part time (well 24 hours a week) at weekends when her dc are at respective fathers' or with her mother. Both other fathers pay maintenance for their respective dc.

Now what has got me thinking is that we have just reviewed payment amount and increased it. I said to dh to make sure she lets her benefits' offices know as we don't want her getting stung. She got back to us saying that maintenance has no impact on her benefits.

How can this be? Out of curiosity, we did a benefit calculation with her circumstances and it shows as eligible for almost £500 a week. Plus her weekly earnings and maintenance payments from dh (haven't a clue what the other fathers pay, so we didn't include it) she is getting over £3000pcm.

Surely, maintenance payments should be counted as an income for her dc if nothing else. I thought benefits were calculated to make sure that families had enough money to live on. I don't begrudge that we pay maintenance, but she shouldn't also be receiving money to pay for her children from the govt, as I believe over £10 per day is sufficient for keeping a child? I don't know what to think. Anyone understand why this is like it is? Or am I just BU?

The biggest problem with the CSA is that their failure directly impacts on the most vulnerable children the most.

If I left my husband, and left him with the children, he'd be able to keep his job, would still be on a good salary and although he'd have to cut his cloth he'd manage. If I decided not to pay him one week then he'd probably have to meal plan or cut a budget a little or not buy brands.

In the case of my grandparents they were, through no fault of their own, reliant on the benefit system and then were shafted by the automatic assumption that maintenance due = maintenance paid. The fact my father decided not to pay meant we couldn't afford the electricity.

That's why it's so important imo. Yes, there are going to be a small group of people who benefit from this rule, but that's always the way (look at things like the tax limits, the person just into the next banding seems much harder done by than th guy just a couple of pounds under it). However the vast majority of the people a change in that rule would really, really impact are going to be the ones already living on the edge.

YABVU. When my daughter was born 10 years ago, her father left me for another woman, and left me with all the bills and mortgage to pay. At that time any maintainance received would have been deducted from benefits so I was forced to work full time when my baby was 2 months old as there was no way I could afford to live off benefits solely. If I'd have received maintainance on top I could have actually bonded with my newborn baby and raised her myself rather than her being in nursery for 10 hours a day until she started reception.
That money is for the child so they do not have to grow up in poverty and I think you are very judgy. Just because she has has subsequent children that she gets money for is nothing to do with you. Don't be with someone if you don't want to pay for their child simple.

forcing some parents to have children would result in an awful lot of damaged children.

The starting point for removal of housing benefit is 6k and when you have 16k you are not entitled at all. Income support is similar I think. So unless a RP was spending crazily I doubt you'd get a hypothetical situation where someone received massive maintenance and benefits too.

"Frankly, as an NRP I do make every chance I can get to see my child, and pay as much as I can towards them, even though it's meant that I've missed out on a lot of things and gotten into debt etc."

This is my experience as a RP. Surely being a parent means you 'miss out' on things due to having DCs. This comes with the territory and not really exceptional IMO.

I'm now imagining the likes of Heather Mills McCartney down the social

That's true Loletta.

No one is going to claim JSA if they get thousands in maintenance be serious. You won't get HB either if you have lots in the bank which you would do if you were getting large payments.
I agree that plenty of nice middle classed divorced parents work out payments and pay on time.
I also know that lots of children are through non married parents and it's much harder to make that work - without the benefit of a divorce settlement, not for moral reasons before I get flamed.
I get nothing despite the CSA bring involved. All this talk of penalties for NRP and prison etc is bollocks. I can't imagine life if we had to rely on his payments.

Toast - you're talking about the capital rules. Nothing to do with Monthly income

You try making a claim with more than that amount sat in your bank account

Heather Mills' reasonable needs were assessed at £800k a year ( you get to keep the same standard of living as after the divorce - which is why my husband got quite a lot of my money) so was awarded a capital sum sufficient to generate £800k a year in a clean break settlement (plus of course maintenance for the child, a nanny and school fees). It's all relative. However most women who give up work and rely on male earnings tend to regret it later so anyone forced to continue to work full time probably ends up doing better actually in all kinds of ways. You could argue anything that results ni women keeping careers and income is actually good for them.

As for the difference between marrigae and living together many of us are very grateful live in lovers get nothing. The last thing I want is moving a man in here who takes more than half my money again and the protection for me and my chidlren is the fact marriage and living together is vastly different and rightly so. If you want the protection of marriage don't have sex with or move in with a man and only with a man anyway who earns more than you before you he marries you.

Try making a claim for HB with more than say 16k sat in your bank account. Christ try it if that amount has recently left your account.

It's quite amusing the panic that one causes

Oh flower i have missed you!

My HB letter says if you have over £6000 total across your bank accounts then it reduces by £1 per £250 over it.

That includes my current account which is always fluctuating.

That's why I said you'd have to be a big spender to still qualify for full benefits if you had a huge amount of maintenance.

I'd like to know why it isn't the other way round, and a nrp maintenance discounted form income.

So Mr x earns £10,000, example figure only. In order to qualify for housing benefit he must earn less than £9000.

He pays maintenance of £2500 per year, bringing his total income to£7,500. So if someone with an income of 9k is deemed in need of help, why is £7.5k suddenly livable on?

Also I don't see why payments can't all be arranged through PAYE.

He pays maintenance of £2500 per year, bringing his total income to£7,500.

No it doesnt bring his income to £7500. His income is always £10k. Maintenance is a bill he has committed to, just like his rent, electric, water etc. if we are going to start calculating maintenance for things to be deducted then surely you have to deduct every other single bill they have too?

The other issue is that it is implying that maintenance is a lot higher than it is, assuming 3 or more children a man earning £10,000 would pay more in the region of £1000 a year, less than 3 children and it would be less maintenance.

Three children is 25% last time I looked? Have they changed it again?

Yes they have but when it was 25% it was of net income not gross income so you need to remove national insurance and pension payments first. If income is less than £200 a week net then the first £100 is a flat rate of £5 and the balance would then be 25%

chunderella that's exactly what I was meaning.

I have seen it 3 times on all three occasions the clients ended up having a interview under caution and benefit refused.

If its in your bank account its treated as capital