AIBU to feel angry after my ex took the car back?

[Walkerss]

So 3 years ago my ex left me for somebody else, I have finally got to a place where I am happy, the kids are happy and all is going well.

when we were a couple we made an agreement that I would pay nursery fees and he would pay the finance on my car. Obviously since the split there have been constant threats to take the car and last night he turned up and demanded the keys. I gave them to him and instantly felt relieved that he didn’t have anything else on me. However school is quite a drive away since I moved area and I told him I wouldn’t be able to take them to school. His response was, not my problem, I can take them on my days so it’s nothing to do with him.

how can he be so evil?! At least warn me so I had time to get a car. I hate him!

There is no measure of this. The only requirement is that child benefit is being paid to the other parent in the household.

I pay for my stepdaughter who lives with us the same as I do for my children who live with us - why should that not be taken into account in testing what I can afford elsewhere?

Cancel the insurance if you have no access to the car

Cancel the tax or will the rebate go to your ex ?

Suggest speak to the school about transport options

Yes if they live with you full time, I also would if a new partner of mine had children but I wouldn’t make the kids that didn’t live with me lose out.

Isn’t it a simple case of if there’s now more kids but the same total money, each kid gets less otherwise the sums don’t stack up….?

Unless there’s a magic money tree that money falls off when new kids pop out (I am actually starting to believe such a tree exists given how many fail to plan financially for their kinds….)?

A parent's car is included in the same exception as spouse. Do you work in motor insurance?

@Walkerss has not been the partner/spouse or child of the owner of the car for 3 years. Unless she has only been using temporary cover to drive a car she doesn't own, then she is likely to have had invalid insurance.

I did a quote with go compare today. It asks who is the registered keeper legal owner. It gave the options spouse parent someone else

By your logic people with cars on finance could never get insurance as they aren’t the legal owner. The finance company own the car until it’s paid.

They are the registered owner and keeper as they are paying for the car. If they don't pay, the company reposesses it and they are no longer the owner or registered keeper.

It is not my assumption it is the rules of multiple car insurance companies. Do your quote on "someone else" that is not your spouse/partner or parent, being the owner with a 5 star Defacto company and see if it refers you to underwriting. Every company I have worked for will.

Do the additional children live with him full time? Does his new partner now need the car to take her children to school? That might qualify as him paying for upkeep. He will apply again for the reduction and if he pays the bills, including groceries, and now the upkeep on a second car which he didn't need before they lived with him, he is paying for her children. Unfortunately if he gets the reduction, there is nothing you can do about it. Hopefully you can go back to full time working so you aren't worse off.

No the finance company own the car they are the legal owners..

www.cinch.co.uk/guides/car-finance/who-is-the-legal-owner-of-a-car-on-finance

His own children should come first. If he took that car to take somebody’s else’s children to school but not care how his own flesh and blood will get there?

Honestly the responses on here, im so shocked

Ask him that.

People are giving you facts and all you want to do is get aggressive with anyone who says anything you don't like. Like he can appeal for the reduction and will likely get it.

You never answered if you were the on the V5 so assuming that means you aren't, and you are mad he took back his own car after telling you he would when you had 3 years to sort your own car to transport your children to school.

EtA He gets them to school on his days doesn't he?

I agree. Support for his children should come first. I mean, it is great that is willing to step up and help his partner. But it should not come at the expense of his children. It’s unfortunate if his partners children’s father is a deadbeat, but that doesn’t mean he should become a deadbeat to his own children in response. And if he’s feeling squeezed in the middle, it’s because he’s choosing to be in the middle.

With the request to reduce child maintenance, it’s clear that this is driven by some sort of a financial issue on his part, whether perceived or real. I say it that way because I don’t know if he could afford to support both families, but he feels like he should only have to support the family he’s currently with (there are many men I’ve known who think like that unfortunately) or if he has felt like he has to step up in his current relationship, and is financially strained.

It occurs is unfair for me because the kids need the same level of support. Their needs don’t suddenly become less. And it is not fair for you, OP, to be left holding the bag and forced to provide more because their father is decided to provide less.

I think of how many times we tell, particularly women or couples who stayed together, that if they can’t afford more children, they shouldn’t have more children. But somehow men get a free pass. They are told that if they have more children or end up in a relationship where they support more children that that should reduce the obligations they already have. Why aren’t they told if they can’t afford to have more children that they should not be in relationships that require them to provide for more children?

Anyway, I’m sorry if life is unfair. Life isn’t always fair. But it’s not unreasonable to be angry when you’re in the situation. I hope you are able to navigate and find a path out with only modest additional stress.

Yes he gets them there on his days so that is all that matters. What a load of crap

He does it once every 2 weeks on a Monday morning

There’s no such thing as a registered owner in this country, only the registered keeper. Presumably people manage to insure lease cars without any issue and they are neither the owner or RK.

A child who is only the paying parent’s partner’s child generally doesn’t qualify as an “other child” for the 11% reduction. CMS can take account of children the paying parent is legally/financially responsible for in the ways specified by the rules, but simply living with a partner’s child isn’t enough.

but surely it’s safe for him to assume that you’re responsible enough to get his (your) kids to school whilst you’re looking after them?

presumably you don’t have any responsibility for getting your kids to school when he’s looking after them, so why do you expect him to have responsibility when you’re looking after them?

This is getting silly

Luckily I have managed to get the children into a really good school in walking distance.

Where are you getting that from?

Parents are told all the time if they can’t afford additional children, they should stop having children. Having a step child and being willing to support a step child is a wonderful thing, but it should never take the place of supporting your own children. If you can’t support both your own children should come first. It should not be left to their other parent to have to pick up your slack.