Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think this child maintenance benefits loophole is ridiculous ?

501 replies

Strawberrrrry · 30/12/2024 20:28

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?

OP posts:
Original poster
Strawberrrrry · 30/12/2024 23:20

I just can’t see how it is justifiable that your take home can be £3,500 and some, much more than the average for a couple in this country, let alone single person, from working part time.

in this scenario, the state absolutely is subsidising a lifestyle and there is no incentive for my sister to work more hours.

there could be a system where you reach a threshold for maintenance and it is then deducted off benefits, there have been many suggested on this thread that are workable.

OP posts:
Miley1967 · 30/12/2024 23:21

Strawberrrrry · 30/12/2024 23:20

I just can’t see how it is justifiable that your take home can be £3,500 and some, much more than the average for a couple in this country, let alone single person, from working part time.

in this scenario, the state absolutely is subsidising a lifestyle and there is no incentive for my sister to work more hours.

there could be a system where you reach a threshold for maintenance and it is then deducted off benefits, there have been many suggested on this thread that are workable.

It's just another example of the shocking misuse of public funds which are fast running out.

pinkfondu · 30/12/2024 23:22

Your sisters situation is not the norm. Why exactly does it bother you so much.

pinkfondu · 30/12/2024 23:23

Oh and the CM was taxed as wages why should it be taxed again?

HauntedBungalow · 30/12/2024 23:23

Why don't you like your sister OP?

XenoBitch · 30/12/2024 23:23

Dorisbonson · 30/12/2024 23:20

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?

Show quote history

But, people on benefits are paid, and do stay in London. Is that so wrong?

notbelieved · 30/12/2024 23:23

Strawberrrrry · 30/12/2024 23:20

I just can’t see how it is justifiable that your take home can be £3,500 and some, much more than the average for a couple in this country, let alone single person, from working part time.

in this scenario, the state absolutely is subsidising a lifestyle and there is no incentive for my sister to work more hours.

there could be a system where you reach a threshold for maintenance and it is then deducted off benefits, there have been many suggested on this thread that are workable.

Workable? At what administrative cost? That's an administrative cost that the taxpayer would have to pay.

Original poster
Strawberrrrry · 30/12/2024 23:24

pinkfondu · 30/12/2024 23:22

Your sisters situation is not the norm. Why exactly does it bother you so much.

It doesn’t so much bother me as that we were both shocked that it’s possible someone’s take home on benefits can be huge. The system allows for unlimited maintenance whilst claiming benefits, which isn’t right imo.

OP posts:
Redruby2020 · 30/12/2024 23:24

Strawberrrrry · 30/12/2024 20:49

When I was self employed and on UC a couple of years ago, I had to self report my income every month. Surely they could implement something similar with child maintenance. Example: did you receive your £1,200 maintenance this month? No. Full benefits. Yes. reduction in benefits.

The taxpayer is effectively subsidising lifestyle in this type of case.

and she is better off (has more disposable) than when she was with her ex. She will be able to use her whole salary, £1,000, as ‘fun’ money.

Then people could misuse that. And say they did or didn't get it.
Then proof would be needed if it mattered that much.
For many they would be up and down sorting out the difference month to month.

XenoBitch · 30/12/2024 23:25

Strawberrrrry · 30/12/2024 23:20

I just can’t see how it is justifiable that your take home can be £3,500 and some, much more than the average for a couple in this country, let alone single person, from working part time.

in this scenario, the state absolutely is subsidising a lifestyle and there is no incentive for my sister to work more hours.

there could be a system where you reach a threshold for maintenance and it is then deducted off benefits, there have been many suggested on this thread that are workable.

CM is for the children. Why would it, or should be, taken into account when it comes to working out UC?

HauntedBungalow · 30/12/2024 23:26

I get £4k of maintenance and I spend it all on holidays to Dubai. I take my kids out of school and we all go together.

NoOneKnowsWhoYouAre · 30/12/2024 23:26

notbelieved · 30/12/2024 22:54

It's easy to day this till you are a lone parent trying to juggle the demands of full time work. I did it - still do - but it has not been without consequences including my children being the first to be dropped off and last to be picked up, and frankly, it has impacted my mental health massively. My children grew up in a fraught, busy household and were pushed from pillar to post. It was awful for all of us.

To lone parent successfully all the jigsaw pieces need to fit - school, wrap around care, being able to get to work (car, public transport), back up to manage illness, enough money to pay for it all.....it doesn't work for everyone, no matter how hard they try.

Show quote history

Yes it's easy for me to say it as I have done it! Single parent of 3 children, £6 a week CM. I made it work because I had to, by working full time and sorting out childcare. No family help.

Miley1967 · 30/12/2024 23:26

XenoBitch · 30/12/2024 23:25

CM is for the children. Why would it, or should be, taken into account when it comes to working out UC?

Show quote history

Because UC incudes child/ children elements in the total award perhaps? And extra rent element to keep a roof over the child's head.

Original poster
Strawberrrrry · 30/12/2024 23:26

Redruby2020 · 30/12/2024 23:24

Then people could misuse that. And say they did or didn't get it.
Then proof would be needed if it mattered that much.
For many they would be up and down sorting out the difference month to month.

Show quote history

You could need to provide yearly bank statements and if child maintenance has been regular, it is deducted the following assessment period. Or it could be deducted from the person paying maintenance, as another poster suggested.

benefits are meant to be a safety net and last resort, I think we forget that.

OP posts:
Newsingle · 30/12/2024 23:27

Katemax82 · 30/12/2024 20:30

Child maintenance shouldn't come off benefits otherwise it punishes children of mothers who claim. They should be able to spend the money on the children

This^

My ex currently pays a significant amount towards our ds each month... he's under investigation for something and will most likely lose his job and then be contributing nothing towards ds while I'm left to cover everything on my own. Why should I be held accountable for his behaviour and lose the benefits that help me afford to stay in work because he's currently able to pay for his child as he should be doing. His finances are nothing to do with me and money he spends on his own child is not my money.

Child maintenance is not a guaranteed income. I can't count on it when I'm making my budgets for keeping a roof over our heads, heating the house or putting food on the table. I need something more guaranteed than that which is my employment and childcare help from universal credit and child benefit.

If cms was taken into account and taxed or reduced your benefits then lone parents especially would be left stuck if an ex suddenly decided to stop paying/ lost their job/ went self employed etc. Why would you want to put predominantly women in a more vulnerable position of being more reliant on scummy exes?

Parents should pay towards their children. The way I see it, the money my ex pays towards our son is for my son. I use some of it for things like nappies/wipes/clothes/presents/nursery etc but the rest goes into savings for ds to help him as he gets older and then our day to day bills I pay out of my full time wage as well as contributing to ds savings myself. Your suggestion punishes the parents left holding all the responsibility and doing all the leg work.

I think it's also important to recognise that it can be incredibly difficult to be a single parent and to sustain employment at all. Ds is in a nursery and my family support me with emergency childcare if he's sick but if I didn't have that family support I'd have to come out of work for every illness, holiday closure etc. Never mind if you have multiple children or older children who then also have school commitments that parents need to be able to attend which are often during the day. Benefits aren't the only reason why many lone parents are working part time and receiving gov support. Many lone parents really struggle to pursue career development to get themselves onto a higher wage or to sustain competitive industries.

HauntedBungalow · 30/12/2024 23:29

benefits are meant to be a safety net and last resort, I think we forget that.

Maybe you lot should concentrate on raising the minimum wage then so families don't need benefits, instead of droning on about single parents bleeding the economy dry. It was bullshit in 1979 and it's bullshit now.

Original poster
Strawberrrrry · 30/12/2024 23:29

Miley1967 · 30/12/2024 23:26

Because UC incudes child/ children elements in the total award perhaps? And extra rent element to keep a roof over the child's head.

Edited
Show quote history

Yes, this. It means the person receiving benefits is effectively getting double payment - one from ex, one from tax payer.

OP posts:
Newsingle · 30/12/2024 23:29

Strawberrrrry · 30/12/2024 23:26

You could need to provide yearly bank statements and if child maintenance has been regular, it is deducted the following assessment period. Or it could be deducted from the person paying maintenance, as another poster suggested.

benefits are meant to be a safety net and last resort, I think we forget that.

Show quote history

So if an ex has been paying regularly, gets to the end of the financial year and then becomes sporadic then not only would the other parents benefits drop but they'd lose their child support income too?

Thus putting families into poverty. How can you not see that this is a terrible, terrible plan.

thescandalwascontained · 30/12/2024 23:30

YANBU

Most single parents I know had more disposable income than my husband and I did for many years as our children were growing up because of the way the benefits system works. It can be galling, tbh, and seem quite unfair when we were entitled to nothing and work very hard for what we do have yet seem to have to pay for everything.

Miley1967 · 30/12/2024 23:31

Newsingle · 30/12/2024 23:29

So if an ex has been paying regularly, gets to the end of the financial year and then becomes sporadic then not only would the other parents benefits drop but they'd lose their child support income too?

Thus putting families into poverty. How can you not see that this is a terrible, terrible plan.

Show quote history

How bloody hard would it be to always make sure the RP keeps the benefit amounts but reclaim those from the NRP by an attachment of earnings ? no need for NR parent to be thrust into poverty at all.

Dorisbonson · 30/12/2024 23:31

notbelieved · 30/12/2024 23:12

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?

I was already forced to leave my family and established friendship network like millions of other people in the UK who have moved for work. Millions of people do this because as working taxpayers they have no choice because they have to pay their own housing costs.

If I was in a position where I was genuinely unable to work and where the state was paying for a roof over my head and putting food on my table I would be grateful to be anywhere.

Perhaps if taxpayers weren't paying for 11m people of working age who were on some form of benefit then it wouldn't be an issue?

Original poster
Strawberrrrry · 30/12/2024 23:32

Newsingle · 30/12/2024 23:29

So if an ex has been paying regularly, gets to the end of the financial year and then becomes sporadic then not only would the other parents benefits drop but they'd lose their child support income too?

Thus putting families into poverty. How can you not see that this is a terrible, terrible plan.

Show quote history

ive said many times this would apply to people who are getting masses of child maintenance, £500+ (or another arbitrary number) and then deduct 50p for every £1 of benefits.

OP posts:
Original poster
Strawberrrrry · 30/12/2024 23:33

Miley1967 · 30/12/2024 23:31

How bloody hard would it be to always make sure the RP keeps the benefit amounts but reclaim those from the NRP by an attachment of earnings ? no need for NR parent to be thrust into poverty at all.

Show quote history

or this!!

OP posts:
MyPithyPoster · 30/12/2024 23:33

Miley1967 · 30/12/2024 23:31

How bloody hard would it be to always make sure the RP keeps the benefit amounts but reclaim those from the NRP by an attachment of earnings ? no need for NR parent to be thrust into poverty at all.

Show quote history

Well apparently it was because that’s exactly how the plan used to work but the government were owed millions in child-support payment. They didn’t like it so now the parents are millions in child-support instead.

notbelieved · 30/12/2024 23:33

I'm sorry that people on benefits should have to suffer the same issues as workers paying tax

Are you a bit thick? How does someone on MW, doing essential work in London like cleaning in hospitals, making endless coffee for city gents.....manage to commute into London? Seriously? I haven't commuted for over 20 years now but it used to cost about £200 a month then from 40 minutes out (and my work paid that as a season ticket loan which isn't the case for everyone). Someone on MW, paying SE rents, barely has money to eat and keep warm let alone pay significant travel costs.

And as I keep saying PLENTY OF PEOPLE WHO CLAIM BENEFITS ALSO WORK AND PAY TAX