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?

100% that needs tackling. Men or women living off trust funds or their new partners while owning a home in their name. Leans should be placed on the property for their half. Remove passports and drivers license like in America. Any inheritance claim it.

Make it a govt debt so it can never ever be written off and builds up till paid off or the debtor dies and the estate pays.

It works if you are self employed because you had a date to give your figures in. My ex, for example, when he did pay, delighted in paying late, often by weeks, or not paying at all. Imagine the chaos if you report on the 18th that you get no maintenance this month, only for your ex to hilariously give it to you on the 28th, too late for an adjustment, so next month you owe money, then next month he does it again.

Perhaps rather than working out how you can prevent other women getting a bit more money you could maybe read some very real case studies from lone parents, particularly those with abusive ex partners, just to see how much they enjoy financially continuing to abuse their ex and children after splitting up.

Maybe have a think about why it bothers you so much too?

Yes ofc. But literally handing a person cash is still a perfectly legal activity.

CMS has the power to apply for court orders to remove passports and driving licenses. It’s already there. It’s just very rarely used as there is no political will.

Also debt to the government is why the system is the way it is. It used to be that RP’s on benefits were only allowed to keep £20 a week, the rest was owed to the Sec of State to go toward the welfare bill. The “let them keep it all” policy was put in when the debt owed to the SofS got so big it was decided that something had to be done..:

dont worry in about 6 months or so they'll call your sister in an ask her to work more hours

She is working, many mothers work part time. Being a lone parent is much harder. Be glad that she is financially OK. I don't get why you would resent someone going through that which is awful. Are you separated?

But her life is about to be completely different, single parent no house ( renting as you mention housing support) different area no doubt, no support emotionally or day to day. It's not forever and as soon as he meets someone with kids or has any other kids this will reduce. He is a high earner so no doubt a stressful job so all the day to day strain will be down to her.
Give her a break not her fault he is a high earner

I was in a similar boat but at first didn’t get anything for the nrp for a couple of years. I justified the benefits as getting a slightly bigger cut of the tax he had been paying as a high earner, while he avoided paying me. But saying that I did have a comfortable income for a while whilst receiving CMS and benefits and for that I am grateful.

Your sisters life has changed and chances are (if she is like me) she will increase her earnings over time and her benefits will decrease (and her own tax contributions increase). CMS payments and the element of UC she gets for having children won’t be for ever and she has to change her life.

Re savings, any I had were wiped out in court fees.

I think you are being unreasonable to begrudge her this money at a difficult time for her.

She'll only get the housing element while she's renting.

Is she coming out of the marriage without any assets to enable her to buy a house?

I guess the story isn't as interesting if she's planning on buying something or remaining in the family home, as that would drop the UC by quite a bit.

Not so froth worthy then.

I know these cases are rare, but it is a bit frustrating if you are a single parent working full time with no benefits

A friend of mine got £2000 a month maintenance, and her mortgage paid, and kids private school. She worked the minimum required hours and claimed a mind blowing level of benefits

She did nothing wrong, and her ex obviously paid a lot of tax to fund those benefits

But it still did feel very unfair

However for anomalies like that it just isn't worth the risk to those parents who get unreliable maintenance payments

The children should be comfortable though OP and having all the extras that come with having a high earning parent. I’d expect a child who had a high earner parent having music lessons, as many sports/extracurricular stuff as they want, tutors if needed etc. The benefits are for the living costs, the maintenance is for the children.

The problem with CMS is that payments aren't necessarily guaranteed to be kept. Lots of NRPs actively go out of their way to avoid paying child maintenence. There are lots of groups dedicated to finding ways to reduce CM to as little as possible. There are far too many loopholes.

What often happens is that a figure is calculated by CMS then the NRP appeals and gets it reduced. This can take many months and then the RP ends up getting nothing or even having to pay back.

I totally agree

but it is a bit frustrating if you are a single parent working full time with no benefits

I suggest single parents in those circumstances aim their frustrations at the government policies that actually penalise them to the tune of thousands a year- eg 75% higher tax council tax liability than parents in a couple, cliff edge CB threshold, income tax threshold etc. There's always going to be someone who has more money than you, can't do anything about that. But liabilities and allowances set by the government don't have to hammer lone parents quite as much as they currently do. Focus on that.

My sister admits herself that she is shocked and it is not fair. I don’t think the tax payer should be paying full benefits in my sister’s situation (she would agree and didn’t think this would be the case). Not every man is a shit who doesn’t want to pay. There will be cases like my sister who are getting more than a families monthly wages in maintenance, part time wages and then top ups from the tax payer.

At least 50% are shits.

What teeny tiny weenie percentage are like your sister?

And if she's shocked, she can find a charity that supports the vast number of women living in poverty because of abuse and non-payment and pay it forward.

Yes, I agree, if she's feeling uncomfortable she could give some money away.

Not to you! (I wouldn't give you anything.). But like a charity or something.

It would be an absolute nightmare to sort this out and would only result in women and children in poverty.

Not many people are in her position and she probably won’t be for very long!

Child maintenance is so unreliable it just cannot be counted. One month she might get one amount and then an entirely different amount the next month!

What you are suggesting is a terrible idea and non of your business anyway!

100% agree. They need to start giving them criminal records! Actually consequences for avoiding paying as so many of them do!

She can use the funds to make the children as close to the same levels of comfort they would be afforded if the parents lived together, so use it for riding lessons or clubs or tutors or swimming lessons or whatever luxuries would normally happen in a household where one parent earns over 100k.

It's shocking he's happy to pay that each month and isn't pushing for 50/50 so he doesn't have to, 50/50 with childcare would be cheaper for him.

But she'll have more than 16k in savings I'm sure which would stop her claiming universal credit

What's not 'fair'? Do you think anyone who earns more than a certain amount doesn't deserve it, or is just your sister?

The amounts you're talking about aren't massive. They're really not. All it means is your sister isn't on the breadline and could save for her and her children's futures.

I'm sure as shit quite happy as a taxpayer to finance your sister.

She should put a lot of that in savings for the kids each month.

I know £1200 is a lot compared with what most reisdent parents get but...

It's £40 a day. For round the clock care and bed and board for multiple children including food clothing activities transport school equipment and anything else they want and need. Some might call that a bargain. If the paying parent isn't doing the childcare it's the least he can offer, and so I don't begrudge her a cheeky manicure or Botox on the side either.

It's clearly not possible to monitor it in the way you want (deduct, assess, reassess, etc). Hence why when things like winter fuel allowance are given (and taken away) it's done across the board as means testing is far too resource intensive. Your sister is lucky but rare. A lot of "high earning husbands" will go for 50/50 or magically become poor to avoid CMS so rather a few people (women, children) are quids in than the reverse.

I just did this maths as well (although it could be slightly lower if he doesn’t see the kids at all). It seems unlikely that if he was earning this much that she wouldn’t have got too much savings in the divorce settlement to make her ineligible for UC.
OP are you sure you’ve got your facts right?