CMS- tribunal

[DobbieBazzler]

Not sure if this is the best place for this query but;

I’m just wondering if anyone has made an application to CMS recently when they have shared care, and maintenance not being payable if the day to day care is equal. (This is the guidance from CMS). I’ve read a lot online about the interpretation of this and it no longer being about having equal time.

For example the NRP may have 4 nights care, but the RP might have 3 nights, be responsible for all the school runs/lunches etc, or vice versa.

I know that CMS have a standard calculator but this is quite outdated but I’m just wondering if anyone has applied for payments or to contest a payment based on more specific who does what, without having go to tribunal or through the court?

Husband has gone through this recently. To be clear the originally reason for his application for a tribunal was different: ex after 10 years of cms payments deciding she wanted more and told a load of lies, instigated an FIU investigation that to be blunt was corrupt, unfair and biased. They made a judgement for a silly amount. It recently went to tribunal and the CMS/ex lost as the judge effectively came to the same decision money wise my husband had said was accurate. Alongside this tribunal he also applied for one regarding shared care as for years it's been a 4/3 night split that has festered an unpleasant amount of control, difficulty and unpleasantness. He had a legal advisor who is ex CMS who advised him against bothering - her words were 'you'll never win it'. TBH at this point after 3 years of shit from the ex/CMS/FIU I think he just wanted them and the ex to justify what exactly she does more than him... particularly after what he's gone through. Interestingly after the tribunal going into great detail about school, homework, hobbies, school holiday care etc shared care was not awarded... wait for it.... because the ex does the dentist appointments.
It explains a lot of parenting responsibilities she was happy to delegate but she was super territorial over doctors and dentists. Clearly it's one of the things that can be formally proven... yet all the informal things that have been left to him as she couldn't be arsed... they don't count. My point is it unfortunately appears to be a tactical game and although shared care isn't about number of nights, it seems certain activities carry more weight and so some parents will selectively be controlling over those.

Oh and also, it's my understanding you would have to go to tribunal for this. If you tell the cms what you do that makes you believe shared care kicks in, they will just give you the run around. Some will even argue the toss it's about number of nights as they seem to think the old CSA rules apply. They are useless.

Thank you @flowergirl2020 for that. I did think it was likely that CMS would try and fob off with a load of excuses. I’m so sorry your husband has been in such a difficult position. It really is such a shame that some parents pick and choose things so they can play the system.
In terms of the tribunal was this something your DH had to request private representation for to take a case against CMS? Or is it effectively an escalation process that CMS go through?

Hi @DobbieBazzler apologies for the late reply. So sorry to hear you are going through something similar. It was just an escalation process he went through. He paid for advice (wasn't a solicitor was an ex CMS employee who know provides services advising parents ) in order to prepare the appropriate paper work, he didn't have representation during the tribunal proceedings themselves. He did try to reason with the CMS directly but had to go through the long drawn out process of MR (mandatory consideration), appeal etc. there's stringent timescales on these to be aware of so you don't miss your chance and no step can be skipped.
What was learnt from it is that the RP appears to be able to make allegations/suggestions with no evidence, but the NRP is required to disproof what the other has said. I've heard of examples where even if you approach the CMS with your justification/evidence directly as part of the first step (mandatory reconsideration) if the other parent refutes it (even without any supporting evidence) they will just go with the RP word particularly in cases regarding shared care, number of nights etc. I imagine this causes a lot of people to give up and not proceed further.

The advice provided by the ex CMS person was useful in ensuring succinct responses that used the correct terminology, cited the correct laws, CMS steps/procedures etc.
Preparation was key as you only get that one shot at tribunal as it can only go further than that if an error of law can be proven. The first go at my husbands tribunal the judge (only just become tribunal judge, background in personal injury) went against him and it was because he was able to show there was an error in law (she hadn't applied the law correctly/fairly) that it was re heard by a fresh judge. His CMS advisor person said that had only happened a handful of times in her 20 years career so I would recommend doing as much prep as possible. It's hard to explain in writing but after the first run through there were so many things we were like 'oh we should have included that didn't realise that was relevant or that the scope of the tribunal would include that etc' if it weren't for the error of law we wouldn't have had a second chance with the better knowledge of what evidence to include. Initially it was hard to keep things focussed and know what to include to keep things focussed but not miss anything. Sorry this is long just trying to give as much detail to help with your prep. If you wish to direct message me I'm sure my husband would be happy to communicate with yourselves to give you some advice/contact details of where he got help.