To think this child maintenance benefits loophole is ridiculous ?

[Strawberrrrry]

I was talking to my sister today. Love my sister, don’t begrudge my nieces and nephews etc. However, I find this benefits loophole ridiculous, though I appreciate she doesn’t make the rules and is just claiming what she can. Anyway.

My sister has just broken up with her partner, they have two kids together. He is a high earner and child maintenance will be £1,200 a month (via the child maintenance service).

She earns £900 a month working part time, school time hours.

She has just put in a claim for benefits and she has been told she will receive £1,400 a month. This includes housing benefits, income support, child benefit. It doesn’t include discounts from council tax etc.

This brings her total monthly income to £3,500 and some change (I have given rounded figures). Completely tax free. I had assumed her benefits would be reduced as she gets a high amount of child maintenance. But no. They don’t count it. She admits herself that her monthly income is massive and she did first assume that the children’s maintenance would warrant some sort of deduction.

As I said, fair play to her as she is only doing what the system allows. However, I can’t help but feel this is a huge loophole, and there should be some sort of cap i.e once you are getting £500+ a month in child maintenance, it starts to affect benefits? And I realise her ex could lose his job at any point or stop paying, but if that happens surely benefits could reassess at that point…

It just seems ludicrous that someone can be getting that level of monthly income from maintenance & benefits, completely tax free. I’m sure it can’t just be my sister in this position.

AIBU?

Every school in our area of London has wraparound care for those hours (some timing variation, earliest start is 7 and latest finish is 7 but different schools). Nannies and childminders also do pick-up services, as do YMCA for some schools, and a sports club for another school.

If your school doesn't offer any wraparound care, that is unusual. The government has an explicitly stated expectation that all schools should offer on-site wraparound care. You need to put a request to the head and if needed escalate to the governing body to get something in place and/or ask other parents which childminders are serving the school, and/or ask a holiday club if they would be willing to put a proposal to school.

But we need to sort it out. There aren't limitless piles of cash. The country is massively in debt and the NHS and schools are not well funded.

Honestly I think we need to end this culture of dependency on cash hand outs from the state. We shouldn't let children suffer so both their parents need to be made to support them.

I think the state would be much better offering subsided services than benefits money.

We urgently need cheaper child care provided to all those who work and have young children and we need to build more social housing for families to rent. These are the killer costs for families.

Instead the government seem to be on a mission to drive private landlords out of the market whilst not building more social housing basically guaranteeing that private rents will rise to insane levels. I understand nursery provision is also in trouble as the money provided by the government doesn't cover the costs of the hours they are then supposed to provide.

Have you actually done a search?
If I look up random towns, I still see holiday clubs and after school care.
Wincanton: https://www.wincantonprimaryschool.co.uk/holiday-clubs-1/
Ancaster:https://www.lincsfamilydirectory.org.uk/kb5/lincs/fsd/service.page?id=ltqt1ikM_LQ,
Skidby Mill - second option for Kirkella is 7.30-5.30: https://hullandeastriding.mumbler.co.uk/school-holidays/holiday-clubs-workshops/

Your borough of London is only a tiny minority of the UK. It isn't proof of your claim.

Didn't say our school offered no wraparound either. It does. There's a very reasonably priced breakfast club starting at 8. Nothing after. Which still falls way short of what you asserted as a universal standard.

The government statement is meaningless, given that schools can't even fill more vacancies with more attractive hours. We're lucky that there are some childminders but again, they do not offer the hours you claimed. There'd be about as much chance of local nannies as there would be of angels flying out of your arse.

And where I live is at least in a city, so it's nowhere near the worst provision. But neither you nor I can assume that what we have locally is reflected everywhere. It's not. You were wrong when you claimed that extended wraparound and holiday care is a universally available standard.

Round here school wraparound is breakfast club that starts at 8 and afterschool care that finishes at 5.45pm

One childminder left.

Holiday club does 8am to 6pm, but there are only 30 places. Previously there was a holiday playscheme that ran 9am-3pm, but those running it (myself included) declined to reopen after covid due to the level of abuse from parents when we could re-open quick enough (council wouldn’t allow us to hire our space).

Next town over has wrap around 8am to 6pm in the primary schools. Holiday club is 8am to 4pm.

there was a hospital site nursery that was 7am to 7pm but it’s closed down recently.

I've shown svailbility by searching areas and supplying links, I didn't find areas with no coverage. How about you name your city and let's see if there is really zero after-school care and zero holiday club options?

We don't all live in London. Few people can afford a nanny. My children's primary had one childminder who did drop off/pick up. She was always full.

Schools with wraparound care may operate waiting lists. And suitable staff are not easy to come by to expand.

At least two holiday clubs have closed around here in recent years. Presumably because they're not sufficiently used. The one I set up is in a far richer area and we are always full. Where you are located - or can reasonably get to - clearly plays a part in availability.

Yes I have, it's a fairly deprived town so I imagine there just isn't the demand for it. The only one I can find finishes at 4.30 and only appears to be open on certain weeks.

There may well be options. Plenty of them on paper. The issue is whether there are spaces when you need them. Or you can put your name down for a summer club and think you're sorted then at the last minute it doesn't run due to low numbers.

Who on earth do you think claimed there were zero after school and holiday club options? You're going to need to clarify that before I give you any more information, lest you try and use it to wriggle out of proving what you claimed.

Telling you that everyone doesn't have access to those childcare hours isn't the same as saying nobody does. You will need to be clear you understand the distinction.

Yeah, I did have a giggle when nannies were mentioned!

With the current system YABU. Many men don’t pay, and the women would be left broke.

The whole child maintenance system needs a complete overhaul, if there was no way out of paying child maintenance then reducing benefits would be fair to reduce burden on taxpayers.

I’m pretty confident changing the system would cost the taxpayers significantly more however.

You are incorrect and out of touch. Nowadays, people on benefits get more universal credit if they do work than if they do not work. It’s built in to the system to make it worthwhile working.

Can I just also add that he might be paying this money right now, but he might not be paying it come April/May/next Christmas.. In fact people in his situation commonly won’t continue to pay.

At one point, I received £280 a month from my ex and now the children don’t get a dickybird; not even a Christmas present.

I’ve lived in a a few areas over the years and all
the holiday clubs seemed to be 9-3.

At the moment one in four children is on free school meals. This means that the majority of their family income is coming from benefits. This represents a huge burden on the tax payer. I don't know how many of these families have a NRP who isn't contributing or a NRP who is contributing but they get the benefits anyway but it must be quite a few.

I don't think we have tried hard enough to find a system that works better. Just seem to have given up.

Nanny shares who charge per family can work out cheaper for those with multiple kids. £10/hr for a family for example. Look up sites like Koru kids, CocoRio, RealNannies, Childcare. DS prefers clubs, but they are viable options.

I'm not going to respond any more, because clearly some are determined to say there are no childcare options available, even down to saying clubs offered don't run. I have met some people in my area who claim there are no clubs too, just because their own school holiday camp closes at 4pm.

Zero financial incentive to work as a single parent in this country and certainly not full time

Absolute rubbish. I work full time and always have, apart from a short period (about 18 months) when, as an only child, I had to manage my mum's dementia. As well as being a full time teacher, I tutor, mark exams and run holiday clubs. I have done everything possible to support my children - but recognise that I was lucky, had healthy children who were rarely off school, had wraparound care I could afford and that was open when I needed it, worked sufficiently close to home to not worry about getting caught in traffic etc etc I also managed it because tax credits helped in the early days whilst I established a career. My ex has yet to pay a penny, 15 years later. And society continually says that it's me who's the problem.

The majority of single parents work, at least part time. UC demands it.

Seriously? You think every part of the country operates the way London works. Sheer numbers of children mean options are available. We don't all live in London.

I don’t disagree, but I know the “it will cost too much” line will be the response from the government.

I think the point is that CMS is the father's contribution, a payment aimed to bring the childrens' life at their mum's closer to his own financial situation so there's a bit of consistency across homes. If he was seeing them more, he'd pay less - so this in theory gives the children more like the life they'd have financially if they were at his.

The UC and job are mum's contribution.

This exactly. I don't think the average person realises just how much of a ticking time bomb this all is?

Nannies are still a totally unrepresentative and out of touch example, because they're not available everywhere and many people have to use provision that takes free hours. The existence of some people who can access them and pay for them without government free hours doesn't change that.

Anyway, don't imagine anyone is fooled fooled by this conveniently timed flounce. You made a ridiculous claim about extended wraparound and childcare always being available, then tried to pretend that the people who called you on it were saying no childcare existed at all.

Sure it was reported in the press that court found she had 10k in the bank but owed over 100k but who knows.

Well I’m not because I know plenty of people who work part time specifically because the UC top up they receive leads to a total take home higher than if they worked full time. Therefore welfare is paying more than work. Maybe not in the same way it used to where people were completely unemployed, but more just the same. Someone who works 15 hours and gets UC shouldn’t have more disposable income than someone who works 40 hours but that’s often reality.

You are actually wrong. UC is worked on earnings not hours and there is a certain amount you must earn.
Yes, you lose 55p in every £1 you earn over a certain amount, but you still get money. If you work full time you get your wages plus some UC.

I am a single parent, I get UC and I get no maintenance, so I cover most of the demographics as I also work 33 hours per week. That in itself is very, very tricky as the other parent doesn’t help.
You also need to pay childcare upfront, so every month or X months you need to pay your bill, in advance, before receiving any help. I have had this refused before because they weren’t happy with the evidence I gave and I got no money at all.

Not all of us are able to do 100k per year jobs, many of us single parents find it a struggle to keep up with the hours we do do, and the demands of children.

Sadly, as is often the way this has descended into benefit bashing, via the medium of “knowing someone who doesn’t work more than 5 hours cos of the benefits” which is not based on the UC I know, with the underlying tone being how lazy single parents are.

Predictably the issue of all the men who dodge paying, and what a position it leaves their children in has been completely forgotten in favour of having a go at women who are doing their best. That might not be your best, but often it’s the best they can do right now.