AIBU about the CMS?

[CamembertIt]

OK, so this will be quite long. 13 months ago, my child's father and long-term ex was arrested on suspicion of serious offences (relevant). Due to the nature of these offences, my DC has had no contact with him since. Maintenance used to be arranged between us based on the online calculator, though I was reliant on him inputting a correct income. Anyway, in August last year, I went through the CMS and have been receiving a regular payment based on information from HMRC about his earnings for the tax year 2017-2018.

The case has now come up for annual review and the amount to be paid has increased. Coincidentally, I have recently been told that he actually changed jobs in October last year and I can see that this is the case from his LinkedIn profile online. I'm not bad at maths and have been able to calculate myself that his earnings increased by about 10K pa last October (way more than 25%). He didn't report that change. That means that since October last year, he has been paying far less than 12% of his income and also their annual review is based on the tax yr 18-19 - for 6 months of this, he earned at a reduced salary! So the average earnings they are using is around £100 too low, compared to what he actually earns and HAS earned since Oct 18. Surely he should be paying based on what he actually earns?!

I have talked to the CMS and they have told me that because they are using HMRC income and not current income, he was under no obligation to tell them about the change and that they will not go back and recalculate retrospectively nor will they approach his current employer to get details of his actual earnings and recalculate the ongoing liability.

He has now been charged with the aforementioned offences and is likely to get a custodial sentence (and even if he doesn't, he'll almost certainly lose his job once everything comes out) at which point, his liability will reduced to nil or very little. He earns a certain amount per week and should surely have to pay based on this amount. He has underpaid for the past 10.5 months and is allowed to continue to underpay. How is this fair or reasonable? Is there anything I can do about it? Why does this system bend over backwards to enable paying parents to shirk their responsibilities? It's all well and good to say that at the next annual review, the income will be taken into account, but that doesn't help me if he's in prison?!

Anyone?

Bump.

We're moving this thread over to our Legal Matters topic to hopefully get the OP some advice and support.

Sending good wishes, OP

I can't offer any help OP other than to say that ime CMS are a very blunt tool. I've heard that for people who have a difficult, untruthful or uncaring ex it can be a nightmare to get the money.

Maybe bump this thread again, into relationships or lone parents where there are many people with experience of this.
Good luck.

Can you do anything, probably no. Are you being unreasonable, also no. My H is paying maintenance on income he hasn’t earned and won’t earn because of their ridiculous 25% rule. I don’t see why it can’t be done on current income.

Similar happened to me, NRP income increased by nearly double two months after annual review, and he didn't tell them. I was told I couldn't do anything about it at the next annual review! Disgusting

This makes my blood boil. They've just gone back 3 years for the nrp in my case resulting in me getting no maintenance whatsoever for the next 14 months (and didn't bother informing me, first I knew was when I didn't receive a payment), and they've overruled a judge's decision as I've already taken them to tribunal and won. Am currently trying to muster up the time and energy to go back to tribunal. It's a constant battle.

These stories are all appalling. I am v pissed off but don't think I have a leg to stand on legally as they have followed their own ridiculous rules. It used to be done on current income through CSA and yes, there were problems inherent in that for paying parents who flit from job to job going in benefits in between (been there too) but this just takes the mick. What difference does it make whether they are using HMRC or the current income - a change of 25% from figure being used should have to be reported but they tell me that, no he had no obligation to report it as they were using HMRC info for previous tax year. I had no idea it worked this way as their initial letter told me that the amount received would not change UNLESS his income decreased or increased by 25%. Well, it did and he didn't tell them and now our DC won't see a penny of that increase, whilst he's been quit happily enjoying it. It's all the more galling after what he has put our DC through due to his actions - DC saw him arrested for serious crimes and that was the last time he saw him, due to the nature of what he's done. And he dares on top of all that to keep the additional money he's earning to himself, knowing that he'll lose his job in the future and then we will get nothing from him. Argh, just makes me so mad. Why do we live in a society which rewards people like him?

To OP

Your Ex is required to inform CMS of a 25%+ change (increase or decrease) in earnings. Look at the link

www.gov.uk/manage-child-maintenance-case/changes-you-need-to-report

You can ask CMS to make another assessment before the annual review date of there has been a 25%+ change, but they will likely ask for some evidence of the change.

He can in theory be prosecuted for failing to notify CMS of a change in income greater than 25%.

How is it that you know what he now earns? Won’t give a figure on LinkedIn.

I was in the same situation. When I spoke to someone at CMS and told them that the website and all letters from them state that the paying parent should inform them of a change in income, they told me the NRP isn’t required to do so. It doesn’t make sense!

In the meantime, my ex had over a year of enjoying his pay increase and not having to pay any more child maintenance.

That doesn't make sense. As other posters have said, he does have to tell them if it's over 25% more and you can ask for a review before your next one is due and arrears have to be back paid. You could try asking to speak to someone more senior or something? Maybe the person you spoke to didn't really know what they were on about? Having said that, even if you are in the right, clawing it back in your situation is going to be next to impossible. He's clearly not in to keeping to the rules anyway!

hairydogmummy I don’t think I’m right, I think the CMS gave me incorrect information. I asked for the payments to be reassessed and even that took three months for them to process. I had to make a formal complaint to them before they made the reassessment. And the arrears were only backdated to when CMS had made their final decision, not to the start of the year or when I made the request for a reassessment three months earlier. They really are a useless organisation.

Having just had to look this up for a client I can confirm that CMS requires all NRPs to tell them of any change in circumstances. It will only affect the assessment prior to the annual review if the change is greater than 25%.

I think @NordicNoirRocks is confused. The paying parent is the NRP.

Collaborate I know the paying parent =NRP. When I spoke to CMS I was told, in error, that my ex (paying parent) didn’t need to inform them that his salary had increased by more than 25%. So either they don’t know their own rules, or they were trying to fob me off. As I said, it took me three months and a formal complaint to CMS before they would consider a reassessment.

My reassessment was done this summer, CMS were basing the payments on my ex’s 16/17 salary and initially didn’t think it worth doing a reassessment based on that alone, or the fact that my ex had changed employer.

@Collaborate you aren't correct. I spoke to several people, including a supervisor. If you look at the wording, what it actually says is that IF a claim is based on the paying parent's CURRENT income, they must report changes of 25% either way. However, when it's based on information from HMRC for previous tax year, there is NO such obligation, the idea being that the change will be reflected in annual reviews, even if this means that there is a big delay between the actual change to income and the effect on the calculation. I know roughly what he earns because:

1. I know his average weekly income for tax year 2017-18 (X), as this is on last year's entitlement letter.
2. I know his average weekly income for the tax year 2018-19 (Y), as this is on the review letter just received.
3. I know that his job changed in October 2018.

Average income for tax yr 2018-2019 = Y x 52 (call this T).
Assuming no change between April and August 2018:
Income for Apr-Oct 2018 = X x 26 (no. of weeks in period) (call this Z1)
Therefore income for remainder of tax year = T - Z1 (call this Z2).
Divide Z2 by 26 (no of weeks remaining in tax yr between change of job in October and April 2019) and this gives an average weekly amount (call it W). If I then compare W with Y for percentage change, I can see on average how much his income increased by in Oct 18. Obviously the figures won't be exact but it is a roughly accurate calculation.

@Collaborate @NordicNoirRocks is not confused. She is quite correct. If is only if the claim is based on current income (which is NOT the default) and NOT HMRC reported average for previous tax year, that any change must be reported. I can assure you categorically that this is correct. It shouldn't be but it is and @NordicNoirRocks has fallen foul of this ridiculous rule as I have. Our DC's fathers have been allowed to enjoy a higher income for the best part of a year without paying additional maintenance. In my case, I will never see that income, since in the next couple of months, he will go to prison or at least lose his job and I will get nothing. It's a joke.