PWC requesting a CM review by the CSA

[NotQuiteBroke]

Has anyone successfully done this on the basis of lifestyle suggesting that the NRP has access to more money or higher income?

My ex has claimed poverty for the last three years - after the divorce he was left with debt (from gambling and porn) and he agreed a debt-management plan, which he has used to beat me with at every opportunity - even claiming that he couldn't remarry because he didn't want his fiancée to be liable for his debt. He insisted we use the CSA because that would protect a proportion of his income from his creditors, which seemed sensible at the time, to be fair.

But, in the last 6 months, he has completely changed his lifestyle - bought a brand new top-of-the-range car, is moving from a 2 bed flat to a 4 bed house, has had two weeks holiday in Florida, and has bought numerous new consumer items for DD, himself and his fiancée, and is planning a big wedding in the Autumn.

I realise that his fiancée may be funding their lifestyle, rather than him, although it seems unlikely as she is an office administrator, but his workplace has undergone restructuring so it's quite possible that he has been promoted or been given a pay rise, but if not, then fair enough, it's up to him and her how they arrange their own finances.

Ex and I have an agreement that I buy everything DD needs, pay for clubs and activities etc - and I'm struggling financially; DD is changing schools soon and I'm having to look for second-hand uniform, rather than new, for instance. ExH and I don't talk at all any more, so it's not like I can ask him to help out with that sort of thing, and he's always paid the CSA - so am I just being greedy to think that if he's earning more then he should pay more?
Part of me thinks that DD is benefiting from the money anyway, because her Dad spends lots on her (electronics, holidays and so on) but the day to day stuff that I pay for is budget rather than quality, and sometimes she misses out on activities because I can't always afford it.

I called the CSA today and they've told me that they'll be phoning him today to talk to him - there will inevitably be fall-out; especially if he has been earning more and hasn't told them, he'll be really pissed off with me and probably take it out on DD

I have done this in the past but not successfully, in my case my x was claiming he lived alone when in fact his partner was living with him, thus his rent was shared and therefore less.the CSA were next to useless and as his partner was on the electoral register as living elsewhere there was no 'proof'

you are well within your rights to ask for a review, I have recently had to contact the CSA again as X stopped paying his £5 a week at christmas.

wrt fallout (i am expecting fallout too) just do not engage. do not reply to any texts,emails,calls etc if you can.this is my plan.

It is very worrying that you say he will take it out on your DD, what do you think he might do? how can you protect her?

A new partner and paying less bills is only relevant on CSA cases opened prior to 2003 because on cases opened after that, they don't factor in rent etc.

If you think it is a case of him earning more now than previously, rather than applying for a variation that lifestyle is inconsistent with earnings, you just ask for a reassessment where he will have to provide his income details again for a reassessment. If he is still assessed on a relatively low income and you then don't think it adds up with his expenditure, then you would have to apply for a variation. But the CSA expect you to provide the evidence of the lavish lifestyle. They won't go searching for you.

He could be gambling again or running up debt.

I know someone who is NRP and the RP used a CSA tribunal to try to get more money out of him. He is employed but also self-employed as well. He doesn't take any income from the business so only his employment income can be taken into account. The RP didn't get any more money, even after the NRP provided loads of evidence (bank statements for personal and business accounts, for example) because there isn't any more money for her to get a share of. The whole thing dragged on for months and months.