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?

But the system is designed to benefit her DC at the end of the day, as it should. Once her youngest reaches 18 though her finances will be very different if she doesn't change careers to earn more.

The most shocking thing to me here is that despite getting that huge monthly income and having split from her high earning husband, your sister apparently doesn't have £16K worth of savings? As if she did, she'd be getting no UC?

Hmm... 🫥

Also that is a lovely idea. But CMS is not straight forward lol, it's what gets people to that point in the first place for a start, that does not guarantee payments. Yeah it's all well and good they can chase it up, then take action. But they have to get there first. Maintenance overall should be standard non negotiable that you receive it, but look how many don't. So it's not something in many peoples cases you can ever rely on.

What job does your sister do that's good for part time school hours.
Especially then with what she will receive. Because it's only over £300 something salary, where it starts getting deducted from your wages.
I just remembered though, the figure you gave from benefits is including what she will get as child benefit.

its not really a loophole is it-? your sister is just one of very small minority who benefits from benefits.

I said housing benefit - did you read it?

Frankly if you are getting 2k a month of housing benefit (as that person was) then yes it is too much and I don't care where you live in the country. 2k housing benefits plus all the other entitlements was over 3k a month!!!

If someone is on long term benefits perhaps it's fair to question if they need to live in one of the most expensive cities in the world?

I agree op. I'm a single mum and I do receive some maintenance (less than the cms minimum). I don't think it's right that the taxpayer is paying for children when their parents should be. If we had a better maintenance system we could pay out less in benefits. The problem is that when they deducted maintenance from benefits before, there was no incentive for rp to ensure maintenance was paid.

Thankyou! This is what I was saying.

You mean the NRP? It’s not on the RP to ensure the NRP follows their legal obligations…

@Vinni8

I am a single parent living in London and earn 3600 a month after tax and get a massive 85 quid a month maintenance. No benefits. After mortgage, bills, living expenses, childcare costs and everything else I don't have enough left over to save 16k! Is that what you meant? Sorry if I have misunderstood.

Yes, the % I quoted seems a bit high but that is all the earners so includes those without kids, those with kids and still with OH etc in addition those with kids under 18 and separated. Even for those that are separated, I suspect a lot wouldn’t be eligible for UC due to savings (very likely if previously married). I think this is such an unusual situation. The OPs sister seems to have put herself in a difficult financial situation by not being married. The ex must be wealthy and is fine with his DC living in rented accommodation where he must own a decent house on that wage.

Disabled people should not be living in London then?
Never mind that they might be central London born and bred... just happened to fall on hard times. Have to leave their support network (and if they have lots of medical appointments, then a city centre is the best place to be).

Yes, central London should just be for the rich, and able bodied, and people in well paid jobs. None of this NMW wage riff raff that need their rents paid. Your house cleaner can come in from Swindon, and your mum's carer can live in a grotty HMO with 15 other people.

I don’t understand it. I was earning £1,500 ish per month working full-time as a single mother of 1 (no child maintenance - he has child every other weekend but nothing else). I received £40 per month in universal credit which I think was towards childcare costs.

I now should get £180 in child maintenance (if he ever pays it). Hooray.

I can’t believe I’ve just busted my gut working 40hrs+ a week for that when I could’ve reduced my hours 🙄.

No. She means that the op and her then husband have been living on a salary of £150k for x amount of years. How haven't they saved at least £16k each in that time?

I think it's the key to why this 'loophole' exists - most people on these kind of salaries have way over £16k in savings.

Another benefit bashing thread. Will this be the last one for the year? Tune in tomorrow to find out...

I agree op. I have savings (because I’ve done without) so I’m not entitled to any help. I earn £1088 pcm. I could be ‘earning’ so much more had I not done without & saved.

Love this!
And not someone putting people down in that position.
Because to juggle everything is damn hard and not done by easy choice for many, I'm sure.
But you either have people putting you down, or women with 3 kids saying I do it all and am on my own and work full time blah blah, so why can't everyone else.
But they don't sound too pleased about it, they say they have to but then they must be better off full time, not everyone is.

They are often the ones I later find out, live in council accommodation not private like I and others always have. They are still getting government support. And don't live in London etc.

If someone is on long term benefits perhaps it's fair to question if they need to live in one of the most expensive cities in the world?

Yes, people with health conditions and disabilities should be ousted from their homes, support networks, move away from family and friends, aswell as health appointments...they should live in the back of beyond, no doubt sharing with others who have no care for them, so the rich, healthy and able bodied can live fancy lives in our country's capital. Tell me, @dorisbonson, what happens if it happens to you?

He wasn’t her husband, he was her partner.

Odds are he does have savings beyond that, but she’s not entitled to a penny of it.

Yes, it's a crock of shit.

Op I agree it's ridiculous.

That's more than families I know with 2 adults and 1 2 or 3 kids have to live on in a month!

My single friend at work worked full time and often struggled to make ends meet. Her similar age sister with the same number of kids/ same size house didn't work and had spare money for lots of luxuries. So of course my friend gave up work and then lived much more comfortably! It's crazy.

This bloody thread, like every other thread involving benefits leaves such a nasty taste in the mouth.

Its like Bingo, benefits, CM, feckless single mums living it up, and now a quiet little shot at where those on long term benefits are allowed to live.

Pretty shitty.

OP is living in a fantasy land I think.
Where there would be different rules for different situations.
Then benefits teams checking this out, and checking that out, then CMS doing such an such.
The system struggles as it is, it wouldn't have time for all of that.

There is already all the messing around with wrap around care paying for it claiming it back, then deducting for money earnt from job income.
I think the benefits are more interested what people are earning for the time being, in terms of deducting benefits.

I wonder who the dad is. De Pfeffel maybe?

Paying for how long, for one month or two, or missing some out, it's a lot of messing around and meanwhile the RP struggles enough already.

What move out of London like all the people who pay tax and work full time and can't afford to live in London so they have to commute? I'm sorry that people on benefits should have to suffer the same issues as workers paying tax.

I suspect most (or vast numbers) of London residents or people who work in London don't live where their born and don't have access to the support networks that you mention.

There are significant differences between severely disabled people and the average benefits claimant.

You seem to be saying those who receive benefits can live where they want and those who have to pay taxes should just shut up and pay for it?