Child Maintenance-Should fathers on benefits pay more?

[CalmGreenWasp]

My ExP owns his home outright, receives in excess of £1,200/month in disability benefits and works cash in hand. His only outgoings are food and utility bills for himself. Is it fair that he only pays £7.00/week maintenance for our DD10? For context, I am a lone parent and own a mortgaged home. I slightly exceed the threshold for universal credit. My disposable household income after mortgage and bills equates to half his, but with two people to support. Is the system broke? Should disposable income be considered by CMS when paying parent is in receipt of benefits?

Not if we stop the housing element of UC ?

In fact why stop there. Just scrap all benefits.

I get the feeling that is what you want to happen anyway.

I get the feeling that humour is dead.

I haven’t bothered claiming the £7/wk as it’s an insult to my daughter. I work full time in a professional job that pays reasonably well, whilst we do struggle, I can’t bring myself to claim it.

Hard to read tone on here, and there genuinely are people on here who think rent via benefits should not be a thing at all.
Apologies if I misread you as being one of those people.

No. PIP is not a work-related benefit, although it can be taken into account if you have a motorbility car and want access to work to provide funding for transport to/from work, but that’s not a given.

PIP is there to cover the additional costs which relate to having a disability, and these can depend on the disability you have.

So for instance I have a visual impairment, buying a screenreader for my personal laptop is an additional cost. Having to sometimes get cabs to/from destinations where public transport is not available is an additional cost which would be covered by PIP.

But adaptations for my job would be covered by access to work, although the government is cutting that back to the bear bones and it’s not being made public knowledge so the government are in fact making it harder for the disabled to remain in work but that’s a different discussion. But in my personal case my employer have covered the cost of my adaptations.

WRT whether CMS should be taken from benefits, it’s a difficult one as it would be the primary caregiver who receives any child related benefits so it’s a grey area. That being said, I do think that benefits should be taken into account on both sides.

Disability benefits are one which you need to tread carefully, but unemployment benefit should be taken into account with regards to paying CMS.

By the same token, IMO if you’re receiving CMS this should also be taken into account if you’re claiming benefits. Because while for some it is minimal, there are certainly people who do receive CMS to the tune of a few hundred pounds every month but this isn’t taken into account and they still receive maximum benefits which is hardly fair.

No need. I'm a grown up.

The best way to deal with some less sparky folk is to take their "idea" and push it further, pointing out what a snowflake they are when it goes too far. As soon as you hear something like

"you know what I meant"
"Not like that"
"I didn't mean that"
"Now you're being silly"

then you know they've folded.

IF we say that a benefit is any money paid by the government that hasn't been hypothecated from taxes, you realise that the second a pensioner claims more than they paid in, they are a benefit claimant. (Don't forget to subtract hoiw much they have cost the state before they retired too ....)

Not that reason and logic do well on MN. More letters than "meme" you see.

Rent via benefits shouldn't be a thing. Creates an attitude that it doesn't "count" as income "because it goes straight to the landlord" and results in the taxpayer subsidising people to live in expensive areas

Ok, so no more benefits paying rent. What will you do with all the homeless people? Many including children.

Claim it and follow @MademoisellePraline’s excellent advice. Hopefully they will then retrospectively revise the amount. I suspect they can’t if you’re not claiming.

Workhouses ?

That wasn't the question. Should the Government provide a no-nonsense, quick to bring case to resolution with measures and penalties moat would choose to avoid? Absolutely. Unfortunately we are miles and miles away from that.

There are three places you can report him -
CMS, DWP and HMRC.

Or the Daily Mail ?

Many taxpayers are also claimants. But you knew that.

I'm objecting to structuring it as a higher payment for higher rent, in a non-time-limited system. I think there should be a pot you get and you cut your cloth from it. With a higher amount in the first year or so to help you adjust to your new circumstances. You can no longer afford that flat in Pimlico.

You know and understand the history behind the decision to remove the means testing (it wasn't quite that), yes?

But if you don't claim it then you cant kick off an investigation into his finances

If he's using Cocaine and driving then The Police might be interested for driving under the influence

I have already reported to DFC (in NI) and it came to nothing. I suspect that HMRC will be similar with the Company, payments in and out in cash will be untraceable.

I was basically told by CMS that they would not look into it because he received benefits. They were incredibly dismissive. No doubt if I reported him for driving under the influence he would pull the mental health card to obtain a more lenient sentence. He really does have everything sewn up into a lovely big bow. It’s impressive what he can get away with

The issue isn't his benefits, the issue is cash in hand work. Report him for that.
Benefits aren't always increased in line with inflation, and aren't even based on what would be an affordable amount to live on - there's no link between the benefit rate and what things actually cost.

Sorry OP I had an old thread open and didn't realise how much it had updated!

This is sound advice that I intend to follow, thank you 🙏

This system would work in my case, provided that government could recover monies from his Estate on death (via sale of PPR). With declining birth rates you would think that welfare and support of children would be a priority in this country, but no.

It is the child who loses out on the lifestyle that their resident parent (normally the mother) might have otherwise been able to afford: extracurricular activities, clubs, trips, clothing etc. Perhaps tuition before a crucial exam or similar. That sum of money adds up over eighteen years. Of course I know that many, many mothers will go without themselves in order to provide for their child, but it is called ‘child maintenance’ so that is why I think a child should be able to bring a claim.

Perhaps facing a now-grown child in court might make some non-resident parents (normally fathers) think twice?

I believe some young adults have sued local authorities for the non-provision of services during their childhood? So there is a model for retrospective claims.

Anyway, there need to be far stronger levers available to both resident parents and their children.