Avoiding spousal maintenance

[Schleich]

Hello,

I'm going through a separation at the moment, and we are trying to construct the financial settlement between us to be as fair and tax efficient as possible.

I am a relatively low earner, and would be entitled to a significant amount of universal credit - I have no savings or any other assets (nor does STBXDH) other than the family home.

I understand that child maintenance does not affect universal credit, but spousal maintenance does. Is there anything to stop us agreeing an artificially high child maintenance monthly payment instead of separate child maintenance and spousal maintenance payments, to avoid losing out on universal credit?

Also, STBXDH has suggested setting up a joint bank account (which only he will pay into as the high earner), which we are both able to use to pay for all costs relating to the children. Would this impact on universal credit? Does anyone see any issues with this?

Thanks!

You're trying to play the system to your advantage is a polite way of saying you're trying to commit fraud.

Please think very carefully about whether this is worth it? What if you get caught?

Because her field is not a high paying one? She indicated a ft Salary around 35k but admits thats the highest kind of level.
She’s just chosen a career in a field that Doesnt pay. OP also stated that even without kids, she would be earning the Same ft as that’s the highest level. People don’t like to accept on Mumsnet that the mother is not greatly self sacrificing. In reality she just does a job that doesn’t as much

Of course, she’ll be compensated by being pt the last few years in the division of assets

Doesn’t change the fact that with 50:50, and little assets, they probably can’t afford school fees and will need to accept some serious reductions in lifestyles
Courts are unlikely to sign all assets to op and school fees and maintenance

make the maintenance more secure so he can’t change his mind?

Fraid not. Work out what he would officially have to pay if he went through CMS, which he could easily do in a year or so.

OP I recognise you from your other post. In that you stated you have earning potential of £35k pa. With Child support of about £1k per month.

I can’t see how you will get spousal.

Your husband wants a house and all his flexibility towards you relies on him getting enough for a deposit. Which would be £30-40k cash.

The only way he would give that up is if he cared more about the pension. He doesn’t.

You are living beyond you means as a couple. You won’t be able to afford that separately. You need to come to terms with that. Don’t use tax payers money to send them you kids to public school. That is morally bankrupt.

If you earn "sufficiently little" to be eligible for UC, how are you going to get and pay a mortgage of £270,000? (On the basis of you saying you have £70k equity, houses cost £300k each so splitting it means approx £30k i.e. 10% deposit each given lenders not keen to give lower LTV currently). Not convinced this will work. Better to reduce your pension claim and get more equity with your STBXH using his higher income to save over the next couple of years to get his deposit built up.

But on your maintenance question, only way to guarantee the higher payment is global maintenance rather than child maintenance- he can just get CSA to work out what he is required to pay after 12 months so you would lose your extra bit

The joint account is a terrible idea.

You say you have no assets, but a house with equity is an asset, and pensions are an asset. You and your husband have a huge amount compared to some people.

Some mortgage lenders will count benefits as income, look at MoneySavingExpert and the Money Advice Service websites for advice on that.

I'd be surprised if you couldn't get a mortgage but if you struggle then you could look into shared ownership, don't know how easy they are to find but it can work out well if you have some equity but a limited income for a mortgage.

I think you need to prioritise housing and other essentials first and then see what budget is left over for private school fees. If your STBXH can afford to pay child maintenance, his own mortgage, and private school fees, great - but he'll probably struggle.

You do need to make it child maintenance rather than spousal maintenance if you can, for UC, but you may not be on UC forever.

Lots of helpful info and advice here
www.advicenow.org.uk/tags/divorce

And you need more legal advice - more than a free half hour with one solicitor. Get a second opinion and more detailed advice.

Thanks to everyone for your input. I've definitely decided to avoid the joint account - my ex and I have agreed categories of costs relating to the children to each be responsible for - e.g. he will pay all the kid's activities, while I will pay for the kid's clothes.

A number of people have viewed it that we are trying to commit benefit fraud, and that simply isn't the case. Neither of us have EVER received any benefits from the government, but right now we want to try to keep the children in private school (particularly the older ones who are at/close to GCSE years), and surely it is reasonable to try to structure our financial agreements in the best way to achieve that if government support is dependent on that structuring?

Anyway, thanks again everybody.

"Neither of us have EVER received any benefits from the government, but right now we want to try to keep the children in private school (particularly the older ones who are at/close to GCSE years), and surely it is reasonable to try to structure our financial agreements in the best way to achieve that if government support is dependent on that structuring?"

It's amazing really that you can't see the problem with claiming benefits so you can continue sending your children to private school

@AnotherEmma

But it is perfectly fine for people living entirely on benefits to have expensive Sky TV packages and brand new iPhones?

I think keeping your kids in private school is a touch more responsible than that.

Wow. You really showed your true colours there.

You begrudge people on low incomes for having small luxuries while thinking that private school (which most people couldn't afford even if they didn't spend money on iPhones) is a "responsible" choice - no, it's a privileged choice.

If you think so badly of benefit claimants then you shouldn't claim benefits yourself. Don't be a hypocrite.

No OP, the taxpayer shouldn't be paying for your kids to go to private school.

Benefits are a safety net, not a way for you to fund your lifestyle choices.

Go to mediation and let the mediator go through all of this. DB just been through this with ex and mediator was really good at getting them to clarify income, outgoings, needs vs wants etc to come up with something a judge would agree. One thing she said was that if they presented an agreement to the judge where outgoings for one was clearly more than income the judge wouldn’t agree it.

4 kids is 3 bedroom house - not ideal if they have to go,from own rooms to sharing but (as ex sil discovered) 2 incomes that cover 1 5 bedroom house can’t magically split to cover 2 of the same size!

@AnotherEmma

An £1100 iPhone is a "small luxury"?! Really?

I don't begrudge benefit claimants at all. My point was that your objection was absurd, because you can't rate such "small luxuries" as more important than allowing a child to finish their GCSE years in the same school they started them.

If you're a benefit claimant, you're in the same boat as a lot of other people. Shockingly, those people by in large are trying to afford rent and food. Yet you think your kids are more deserving of private education than other kids are of watching Sky TV?

Wow.

@Kassandra1

You are deliberately misinterpreting what I've said - which is that keeping them in the same school FOR THEIR GCSEs when they have already started them is essential. They definitely deserve that.

Sky TV is a pure luxury.

It's funny how your perspective on essentials change when you can't afford housing or heating.

You clearly need advice on your divorce but fiddling the finances so the taxpayer can fund your lifestyle and allow you to send your kids (who have already benefited from at least 3 years of private education by the sound of it) to private school is morally dodgy at best and benefit fraud at worst.

I have to say, it seems you are due to come back to earth with a bump very soon

[quote Schleich]@AnotherEmma

But it is perfectly fine for people living entirely on benefits to have expensive Sky TV packages and brand new iPhones?

I think keeping your kids in private school is a touch more responsible than that.[/quote]
Seriously.

You either have morals or you don’t. What other people do does not justify what you do.

But you know what OP, there isn’t any honour amongst thieves. You can’t con an honest person.

Remember that your husband won’t have to pay anything but CMS based on his real access arrangements after a year. When he has got his equity and kept his pension. He will then renege on everything leaving you high and dry.

If you haven’t figured out you are being conned yet, then your greed isn’t just your only problem.

"An £1100 iPhone is a "small luxury"?!"

No, that isn't a small luxury, it's expensive.
Do introduce me to all these benefit claimants with £1100 iPhone, in all my years of giving benefits advice I haven't met a lot of people with the latest top spec iPhone. Funnily enough most of them are more concerned about paying their bills and buying food.

But you crack on and use the imaginary iPhones as an excuse to justify your choices...

[quote Schleich]@AnotherEmma

An £1100 iPhone is a "small luxury"?! Really?

I don't begrudge benefit claimants at all. My point was that your objection was absurd, because you can't rate such "small luxuries" as more important than allowing a child to finish their GCSE years in the same school they started them.[/quote]
Person on benefits owning an iPhone isn't so bad. Many people owned them already before losing jobs. They can be cheap to buy second hand and have Sim only.

Unless you are exempt, which you wouldn't be, a phone and a device to get online are a requirement to look for work and correspond with UC.

Circumstances change, it's not down to the government to provide funds to maintain your level of lifestyle choices. Children move schools all the time including during those GCSE years.

It's not easy however, you also have the luxury many others don't, the means to hire private tutors.

The only obligation the government have to do is provide a means of getting an education. which you have deemed unacceptable and taken an alternative route.

DWP person here.

Spousal maintenance counted.
Child maintenance not counted.

Money from a property to buy another property disregarded for UC purposes for a period of time (forgotten how long now but you can google that)

Absolutely nothing wrong with claiming UC on a low income as long a everything is declared. Benefits are not moral arbiters. If you qualify you qualify, AnotherEmma. You can then decide to piss it all up the wall, educate your children privately, gamble it, by crack, or use it as a top up on the extortionate cost of renting that is not even close to being covered on benefits.

I know which ones I find morally difficult.. and I've seen them all. Education is not amongst them. It is just another 'lifestyle choice' albeit a healthier one than normal.

Go for it , if you qualify OP. Go to the turn2us website and play with the figures to work out your best outcome.

I don't need a lecture from someone who works for the DWP!

I'm not the one judging benefit claimants for how they spend their money - OP is.

@AnotherEmma

"I'm not the one judging benefit claimants for how they spend their money - OP is."

You liar! YOU started out with the judgements by saying:

"It's amazing really that you can't see the problem with claiming benefits so you can continue sending your children to private school"

If that's not making judgements about benefit claimants (me), I don't know what is.

Any reason why DWP workers are not permitted an opinion AnotherEmma .? Especially in a topic related to benefits. ?

I think you may end up in a bad place here. Someone I know was similar to you, husband with high salary, but both poor in assets. Anyway, the court said her husband did not have to pay school fees, just maintenance. At first, he continued to pay, then he met someone else. They got married and had a baby. Her maintenance went down to CMS minimum and he stopped paying the school fees. He earned 100k and the judge didn't award spousal.

Everyone always says they'll do the best thing by their children, but your lifestyle is going to change, one way or another. Maybe he will be one of those people who continues to pay school and gives you maintenance on top despite the 50/50, but it is very risky to rely on that.