To think in certain cases Csa should be taken into account

[ChelleU]

This is mainly in regards to two people I know but it got me thinking about why Csa is not included as income when claiming benefits. Now I'm not dense, I realise that the main reason is for absent fathers who disappear or try and get out of paying. In these cases fair enough. But when there is doubt about whether or not the individuals involved are a still a couple then I think something needs to be done, and that they deduct the Csa off of the mother's/father's benefits.

A person who I classed as a friend (she no longer is) is, in my opinion cheating the system but she's played it clever. The father of her children who she's been in a relationship with for years now technically lives at his father's house. I say technically because whilst he may be registered on the electoral roll and leaves his belongings there he still sleeps at her house almost every night, they spend time together as a couple, and it's pretty much business as before.

Another person I know (dh cousin) has five children, refuses to work and keeps finding loopholes not to work ie claiming carer's allowance even though she doesn't do much carIng, spacing her kids out purposely so she can stay on income support. Now that she has split up with the father of her kids (genuinely split as far as I know) she still refuses to get a job because the amount in benefits she receives plus the very generous amount of Csa from the father of her kids means that she lives a very cushy lifestyle.

Aibu to think that in cases like these were it's questionable whether the individuals are still a couple, or were the person refuses to work even though they could, the Csa should count as income and be deducted from benefits directly or payments reduced over time.

Also CSA comes out of the parents already taxed income. You'd be taxing it twice effectively.

And for all the posters who have been banging on all weekend about how unfair maintenance is for the men who do 50/50 care and still have to pay (and throw in all the "the exW is lazy/doesn't work/claims benefits/takes drugs/lies in bed all day/spends the CM in the pub and getting her nails done/the DSC are always dressed in rags" drip feeds):

No, the system doesn't work perfectly. But the way it is at the minute, it massively benefits men, as a class. Because 30% of absent fathers pay NOTHING. Nadal. Zilch.

Of those who do pay, many pay £5 a week.

£4 billion is owed by men (95% are men), to women who are lone parents. And the CMS has no intention of clawing back these arrears.

If men want the system to be set up in a way that is fair to the very, very limited % of "good guys" who do pay and are involved with their DC, then maybe they should campaign for the men who are ruining it for everyone else to cough up.

Once that's done and the vast majority of cases are resolved, then we can all start looking at the more nuanced and very rare scenarios where it's unfair to the men.

Aye has yet again hit the nail on the head.

I'm sick to the back teeth this weekend of the single mother bashing threads. I suspect infiltration as others do but I do wish these GFs would piss off.

Save your bile for the people who are the real problem - absent parents who pay and do fuck all.

For goodness sake. Is your life that boring? I wish mine was so quiet and stress free that it allowed me the time to delve in depth into fanny and her great aunts cats 3rd cousins financial situations.

Forced to live with someone she doesn't want to live with really. This isn't a new relationship, she's been with this man, the father of her children for years. For what it's worth I think the idea that a single parent who takes up a new relationship should be forced to move in with that person purely for financial reasons is ridiculous

So where's the cut off point?

If she wanted to live with him he wouldn't have moved out duration of the dalliance does not matter

Applauds Shirley and Aye.

Thank you Aye I've had nothing, nought sweet fuck all for over 5 years and as dd is 18 next month I don't suppose I ever will. I've actually given up trying because I don't need acrylic nails adidas joggies or a packet of fags and a bottle of gin
I need to feed my dd with what I do earn. Her Father couldn't give a shiney shite about her but I do. Here's hoping she avoids marrying a violent tosser like her Father.
I also have no time to concern myself with other's financial situations

So, let me get this right, you're suggesting that where benefits are claimed fraudulently, people should continue to receive the benefit minus whatever they get from the CSA?

As opposed to simply not receiving any of the benefit...

Yeah I can see that working.

You do realise that the first person you should actually report for fraud.
If things are as you say they are then ^this is very simple.

But judging by all of these comments....
she was very blatantly open about her circumstances
by moaning that it's hard being a single parent, constantly going on about how hard she finds it money wise
when I know for a fact she isn't struggling
she claims they're just staying friendly for the kids but it's all crap
You actually haven't got a clue what is going on in her life

Carer's Allowance must have been increased without me realising it, for her to be living such a lavish lifestyle!

Why is it ok not to tax Csa but it is ok to tax carer's allowance?
CSA is paid from taxed income from the NRP.
CA is income.

Do you know why they don't count it?
Because the CSA is ineffectual and can't get the maintenance a lot of rp are entitled to.
Basically if the CSA weren't so shit and could collect the maintenance like they're supposed to, then they could count it with regards to benefits.
Take it up with your MP. It's a real issue and the more of us who do the more likely it is that they will look into it.

I think you need to be less invested in the financial affairs of your supposed friends and get yourself a hobby.

I would sincerely hope a person I knew would not make my financial affairs visible on a public forum which the media often use for content.
There are some very dubious intrusive newspapers on the market who gain from people's upsetting circumstances.

My ex is a high earner and pays me s decent chunk (the CSA/CMS minimum, but as a percentage of a decent salary it is certainly a help). He doesn't pay a penny outside of this - if he takes them out clothes shopping he asks for the money back from me, if they need any money for school when they are at his, he wants it back. He doesn't give them pocket money and spends a lot less on birthday gifts etc for them than I do.

If it were counted as income and deducted from my TCs I would be struggling financially, so I would just insist that he pay for the DCs clothes, shoes, Xmas & birthday gifts etc. instead of coughing up for maintenance, as so many NRPs seem to get away without paying it and unless I made a claim they wouldn't chase him for it.

Fraudulent? No, I wouldn't say so. Playing the system, yes probably. Nobody can legislate about how much money a parent is allowed to spend on their child outside of CM.

But if it meant the loss of several thousand pounds a year then that's how I'd organise my finances. People will find a way round any rules that are set, whether paying cash instead of recorded transactions or, like the person you mention OP, someone being registered as living elsewhere while maintaining a relationship with the other parent. You can't legislate how friendly a couple are allowed to be after separating.

Instead of spending your time worrying about a couple of thousand pounds a year being taken from the national coffers by a single parent, why not educate yourself about the millions of pounds of tax being evaded by large companies. As usual on these threads, reserving your scorn for the less well off in society rather than directing it upwards.

I read something the other day which I think fits here . If the river is polluted, look upstream.

You realise that prior to 2010, child maintenance was included as 'income' for some means tested benefit purposes, including tax credits. This was regardless of whether or not the maintenance was actually received. In fact, at one point, a parent with care was forced to hand over the ex's details to the CSA regardless of whether or not they actually wanted to receive child maintenance as a condition of receiving any other benefits. That there was proven domestic violence, invovlement of social services etc. meant nothing at all.

A very clever NRP who wanted to continue to abuse his ex could do so via the CSA. At best, it is an administratively inefficient organisation. At worse, it is deeply incompetent with poor quality systems and too many staff who just don't know what they're doing (this isn't their fault necessarily). So....pay this week, don't pay again until the CSA contact you - could be weeks/months. Every time you pay your maintenance, the ex is forced to re-declare it to the relevant agencies and the claim is stopped/put on hold until the calculations can be made. No money then appears from benefits for potentially weeks, sometimes months at a time. Repeat ad infinitum.

The DWP, HMRC and local councils admitted to not being able to process claims quickly enough. Children being left in the most awful financial straits. So, the rules were changed.

There is a reason that in some cases, benefits/tax credits are not stopped if there is doubt over the claim. That is, in the event that a reporting of not being single is malicious (or just wrong), it is the children who go without.

Your friend who is in receipt of Carer's Allowance presumably has a child or elderly relative with a disability or serious illness to care for. Why would you envy her that?

needsahalo Thanks that's a brilliant post.

We've already tried taking child maintenance into account for benefits payments, and it failed. It has no chance of working unless you have an extremely robust collection system. We don't. That means YABU.

I'm not actually convinced that the first 'friend' is doing anything wrong. Unless the OP is actually running an MI5 stylee surveillance operation on the "friend" she has no idea how often he stays over, how much he's paying, or what is going in and out of her bank account.

And apparently everything the "friend" says is a lie. It's perfectly possible she's dirt poor, struggling to pay her bills, but the grandparents of her children like to give them nice birthday presents. Or maybe she got them knock offs from the market that actually don't work that well but look nice. You don't know. Heck, maybe she's telling the truth when she says they are trying to put on a good front for the kids. Sometimes people do do that.

All you've got is a lot of mean guesswork.

Most people are sensible. they realise that a society functions best when it works co-operatively. That way most people benefit.
No system is perfect and you always get the5% who ride on everyone elses coat tails. To close down the 'loop holes' that allow then to do that mean harming many mnore people.

So you basically have a choice. Penalise the many so the few dont get away with it, or benefit the most at the risk of losing out a little.

Even disregarding the rights and wrongs of any situation, I don't know why people get so wound up over this stuff.

I go to work, I earn my money, I don't give a shit what anyone else does, to be honest. That's their business.