CSA reform - single parents to pay to use service - to be very angry!!

[timefliesby]

www.gingerbread.org.uk/news_detail.aspx?ID=235

So, the government is closing all existing child maintenance cases over the next three years and washing its hands of the £3.5 billion it has FAILED to collect on behalf of single parents. They say they'd like to give separated parents "the chance to come to a private arrangement" or failing that, all those single parents - you know, the ones that aren't getting anything for their children - to PAY to use the CSA. Yes that's right...pay to use the service which has FAILED to collect £3.5 billion owed. But just to hoodwink you into thinking you're getting a new service they'll rebrand it the CMS (wonder how much that's costing?).

Here's a revolutionary thought...the parents that are on friendly enough terms to agree a private arrangement have got a private arrangement already. Which harebrained, ignorant, idiot sat and looked at it and went "I know...we'll just get them to agree it between themselves"...no matter that some of them may have escaped just about with their limbs in place or endured years of control freak behaviour from the non-resident parent.

WHAT A JOKE!!!!

It used to be with the jurisdiction of the courts, because the only language these non-resident parents actually understand is "the bailiffs are going to be sent in" or "you will be going to prison.. if you don't adequately contribute to your children's upkeep."

Then the CSA came along and children suffered for it...now it's the CMS which is basically just the government's excuse to wash their hands of the whole debacle because which cash strapped, single parent can afford to pay for a service that fails to actually secure them any financial contribution towards their children???

Oh and the £3.5 billion is much lower than the figure would be had they actually made a maintenance decision on all those self employed fathers claiming they live on £600 a month whilst owning several companies...

DISCUSS PLEASE!

I would say threatening to take someone to the new service so they get a 20% charge could be classed as financial abuse?

but the scheme hasn't been set up like that, has it? So we can threaten all we want but the simple fact is, if you're a compliant NRP who simply wants to pay maintenance on time, every time, there will be no charges to pay.

Would be a much better charging system if it charged only the person unwilling to do things amicably.
Panda - this is what already happens. If NRP hides or ignores CSA etc they get a charge.

I agree with whoever said they should be linked to banks and mortgage applications. If we can't rely on PAYE banks should have to open up to the CMS. Only if they are self employed however. That should deter NRP from hiding income.

*Pandachu, 3/5 of lone parents with care and control, get no maintenance at all.

And how many of these parents decide they don't want maintenance? They may be already happy with shared care/other arrangements that don't include money, or may just want to, and have the resources to "go it solo".*

No, these do not include parents with shared care, they are separately counted. They also don't include widows.

3/5 of lone parents get no maintenance at all because the (mostly male) NRPs are allowed to not pay.

And when you point it out, people start saying "oh well maybe lone parents don't want the money.

I'm sure there will be a minority of LP's in there who are happy to not receive maintenance.

But it's interesting that you focus on them (what must be a tiny minority) and don't seek to question why so many NRP's feel so little obligation to their own children, that they don't even pay the paltry amount our state says is fair for a NRP to contribute to their children.

As for only charging the parent who won't agree to a private arrangement - what if the NRP earns £100,000 a year and offers to pay a fiver a week? Should the RP who refuses to agree to that private arrangement, be charged? Really?

I think the CSA should be abolished altogether and maintenance simply automatically deducted from wages for every NRP every month. Everything could simply be handed over to a dept like the DWP, maintenance shouldn't be treated as a private matter which is really up to the whim of parents whether they pay it/ claim it or not. It should simply be treated as an automatic expense like any other, student loan, NI, tax etc.

That's the only thing that would ram home to people who don't live with their children, that they are still financially responsible for them. At the moment, most NRP's don't believe that.

And depressingly, government agrees with them. That's why it has no interest in setting up a system of payment that broadly works with few exceptions. No system can ever be perfect, there will always be hard cases, but there could be an attempt to ensure that at least most kids will have financial input from most NRP's. No-one in govt, of whatever party, is even remotely interested in that. If they were, they'd have done it. Instead, they set up systems that will make the situation even worse.

The problem is, as has been pointed out many times, that many of those non-payers run their own businesses, self-employed or unemployed, this makes it far trickier.

The problem is, as has been pointed out many times, that many of those non-payers run their own businesses, self-employed or unemployed, this makes it far trickier.

This is why i think it should be a universal system with a national minimum (rising once earning above a certain threshold) where ALL parents automatically have [example] £20 a week deducted per child per week from wages or benefits from birth of the child. Regardless of whether couples are together or not, BOTH parents would always be paying it for the whole of the childhood.

And those who claimed to have no income and didnt pay would be building up arrears with the Govt and be liable for investigation and debt recovery action.

It could also be an option to transfer your eligibility for payment to your partner if you were a SAHP or to anyone else for whatever reason you couldnt pay it AND THEY AGREED TO TAKE ON YOUR PAYMENTS.

I honestly do believe that the worst offenders are the self employed - the time effort and money they spend to hide assets and pay is so calculated and cold that there is clear intent to deceive. Usually they are the ones with the "most to loose" in that they have managed to get away with paying the minimum and reaping the benefits of not paying a fair amount.
Anyone on the PAYE system is at least doing the minimum by law to look after their child.

If all banks who deal with self employed people had a little flag pop up when this person has had orders against them by CSA for non-payment or CSA showing an interest in their wage, we might start to get somewhere. Banks and lenders should be obliged by law to pass on self employed's earning information and proof they have to acquire for their bank/lending company to the CSA. If the bank is happy to sub £350k+ for a house to someone apparently earning less than minimum wage, CSA should know why.

The only loophole then left is diverting earnings before they hit their bank. That is where it becomes harder to show. It does also carry a risk for the NRP doing it, as whoever is holding their money should not only be liable for prosecution by law, but they could loose out if they fall out with that party/parties.

And yes, I am still posting as I haven't actually NC'd for this and it is a matter I feel strongly about, not merely for personal reasons, as I stated upthread.

Having skimmed through this thread. It does seem that people who are claiming to be self employed are by far the most difficult people to deal with. Taking payments for children to one side it does seem that the self employed side of things needs a drains up as there is clearly lots of areas where it can be abused

Talking about deducting from source is fine if they actually have an income. If, as many claim on here, some NRP are not declaring income etc then there would hardly anything to deduct it from- half if nothing is half!

It seems the problem isn't PAYE earners it the self employed so deducting at source won't make any difference to them.

As I said up thread most of the NRP who don't pay their fair share will at some point want credit or a mortgage and I'm sure that they have an income then. Those figures should be obtainable by the CSA (or whoever) and then used to calculate maintenance.

The only other way would be to link it to a self employed persons annual tax return. HMRC calculate tax due based on that and then the child maintenance could be calculated in a similar way with the same penalties and sanctions for not paying child maintenance as not paying tax.

If youvthink they are lying in their tax return then report then and get them investigated .

Talking about deducting from source is fine if they actually have an income. If, as many claim on here, some NRP are not declaring income etc then there would hardly anything to deduct it from- half if nothing is half!

Those who declare themselves to have no income are being sheltered and fed/clothed by someone. They should be made to show how they are surviving and whoever is supporting them (paying their food bill, electric bill etc) should also be made liable for their child maintenance bill. That might make that enabler think twice about whether they want to help them hide their income.

Agree YBASB

I would rather chew my own toenails than have to track down my ex to make an arrangement for him to carry on paying £5 per fortnight, he must be jumping up and down with glee that he will be £120 per year better off now

It seems to me that the self employed are the reason CSA fails. Perhaps it is time to separate PAYE NRP and have CSA focus on them, so they don't need as many funds. A separate, more legal and tax linked dept should be set up for NRP who are self employed or not on PAYE system. This could be paid for in some way either by the NRP when assets are seized or something similar to the current proposals - with the onus on the dept to find and seize assets so that the RP is actually getting something for their money.

Not that ALL NRP who are self employed aren't earning as they say, but if there is evidence or suspicions these should be taken into account. This benefits the average tax payer as well as tax can then be claimed from the income being hidden and the difficult NRP's are not being paid for by the average tax payer.

YABASB Yes - I think that proving how they live and who is paying would also help to cover diverted income quite nicely too.

You're being a silly billy.

I don't see how you can make someone else financially liable for a child that isn't there's. the only way to deal with that scenario would be to make colluding to avoid child maintenance a crime and have people taken to court and prosecuted. Unfortunately I don't see that that will ever happen.

However, NRP are entitled IMO to take career breaks, be SAHP or go back to college.

Lying about having little or no income and actually not having an income are two very different things.

If you can prove that they are colluding with NRP to 'hide' income, as it it is coming from NRP's business (paying new partner to be Secretary on a wage of £60k while company shows minimum wage for NRP for eg) then yes, I think that should have a fine or legal consequence. Perhaps a fraud marker on future loans?

I have it!

Ok so instead of paying CM to other parent or both paying £X into CB account.

ALL parents pay a child tax from their income to the Govt. from the day child is born. Govt combine both parent's child tax and add their own contribution of CB (if applicable) and pay it to person receiving CB in one weekly/four weekly payment just like CB is already paid. Meaning PWC gets that payment regardless of whether NRP pays or not. NRP's debt is with Govt just as if they havent paid other taxes and Govt pursue them for it. This means no need at all for PWC to contact NRP if they dont want to (like in cases of DV) an no accusations of PWC using CSA to torment NRPs as it would require no interaction between the two and neither would get to say "it's not enough, it's too much, it's being spent on holidays, it's not regular" etc.

But how would you get the self employed who aren't declaring income? They are already in debt to the Govt for tax evasion and nothing is being done, so they are clearly not that interested...

I think the current system is fine if you are on PAYE. CSA has control there.

Another dept with specialists needs to be set up to trace money for self employed NRP's who are abusing the system and costing it money.

However, NRP are entitled IMO to take career breaks, be SAHP or go back to college.

Indeed, but not more than their DCs are entitled to eat. If you choose to be a SAHP or return to college you dont start existing on air and living in a cloud. You work out how you are going to survive and cover your bills that cone with existing. One of those bills are the cost of feeding and clothing the children you created. If you decided not to eat you wouldnt last very long on your college course, what makes it acceptable to decide your children shouldnt eat?

I don't see how you can make someone else financially liable for a child that isn't there's. the only way to deal with that scenario would be to make colluding to avoid child maintenance a crime and have people taken to court and prosecuted. Unfortunately I don't see that that will ever happen.

If you are declaring no income and have dependants you should be legally obliged to prove how you are existing. Perhaps an option to nominate someone as your sponsor who has agreed to take on your bills for the duration of the time you are not earning. One of your bills is your children's food, clothing, heating bills so that person would be liable for your child maintenance as well as your other bills.

I cant see many people agreeing to sign up as a sponsor for someone who is just hiding their income so this might force shitty SE NRPs to disclose their income because no-one is willing to cover for them.

As i said waay upthread, the whole system meeds overhauled and needs far more co-operation between services. This wont happen. Not any day soon as it will cost the Govt money and they dont value women and children so wont spend it.

Yes but children usually have two parents. It's not just the job of the NRP to provide for the children. If the parents were together and one of them took a drop in salary there would be a drop in living standards it's no different.

What about when a NRP loses their job and goes onto benefits? Or can't take the stress of their job so takes a lower paid job? At what level should they have to pay CM then?
This is going down the lines of saying that you paid x once you'll pay x forever.