Good news..changes to maintenance payments and Income Support

[onadietcokebreak]

Good news for anyone who is not entitled to Income Support because maintenance payments exceed the amount payable.

From April 2010 maintenance payments are fully disregarded when assessing Income Support claims. It has already been disregarded when assessing Housing benefit claims from October 08.

If anyone has previously claimed and been turned down it may be worthwhile making a claim again in April.

Hope that helps some people.

Great news! The state picks up an even bigger tab! That'll really encourage absent parents to kick in their financial responsibility.

Actually its about eradicating Child Poverty and encouraging seperated families to come to arrangements for financial support for the children. The current system doesnt encourage that as lone parents who receive maintenance are penalised.

God, that makes me mad.

OP, PLEASE PLEASE explain why maintanence payments (which are legally enforcable) should not be taken into account?

PLease do explain that.

So a resident parent will be able to get full IS and HB from the state even if they receive an extra £150 a week in maintenance. That will really encourage them to go out to work and contribute. Not sure this is a good thing tbh. Depends on your personal circumstances I guess.

I wouldn't think to much about this to be honest with you.

If the Conservatives get into power, it will soon be scrapped.

You will probably find that there is a cap for this as well. I can hardly see someone who recieves £2000 per month child support, being able to claim IS and housing benefit.

it just sucks.

plain and simple.

It encourages resident parents to stay at home (and on benefits) and I can't see how it encourages non resident parents to contribute. In fact, I can see totally how it doesn't.

I am sure it works for those who live on benefits, are happy living on benefits and have no urge to ever get off benefits...

but for the MILLIONS of people who DO want to get off benefits and out of the whole stupid cycle of benefits, i can't see it does any good at all.

I am sure Labour are hoping to pull in a few more voters with that one though.

The way this government are handing out benefits is like drugs - get you hooked and then they've got you - Cos you can't afford to take the hit and work, because you'll lose your bloody benefits.

I suppose it's one way to try to ensure victory at the next election. but at what cost?

Where are they getting all this money they seem to be handing out like it grows on trees - to banks, as aid to foreign nations, on wars, increase in state pension, etc.?

I don't get it.

The way I see it is this:

Why should maintenance be taken off income support? Very few claims now pay for Children...these are normally paid for by the Child Tax credits system.

Therefore most lone parents receive the single persons amount of £64.30. As it stands at the moment maintenance (which is paid for Children) is taken off against that amount (which is meant for the adult only).

So something that is meant for the child is taken off the adult.

Solution? Take maintenance off CTC..
But that wouldnt be a vote winner as more people would be worse off as it is currently disregarded

I received income support and housing benefit for five years when my 2 dds were preschool age (no maintainance). We weren't living in luxury but it certainly wasn't poverty either.

I don't see how it can work either.

Also the maintenance is paid for the child not the parent, so IS should be able to be claimed anyway, as IS claims now deal only with the adult and give nothing for the child. The child element comes courtesy of WTC.

Do maintenance payments get taken into account for those calculations does anyone know?

Neither do I, Expat, neither do I.

But, I really don't think there is a long term plan here.

I think it stops the day after the general election.

Sorry I don't understand this - do you mean that whatever level maintainence is paid at that will not count as income? Therefore a person can receive full income support plus substantial moneys - and as long as it's child maintaince that's ok?

I find this hard to belive tbh. I thought income support was intended as a basic payment to keep body and soul together - not a top up to an already adequate income! I suspect this will affect few people as the numbers receiving substantial maintainence and not working is surely quite small - but I do think i no one person who would be able to claim under this ruling and as a tax payer I'm quite miffed about that! If income support etc adjusted for maintaince leaves people in poverty then fine, move the level, adjust the payments, put the money up. But don't remove the scrutiny of maintaince altogether - it's 'real' money that can be spent on anything - why on earth shouldn't it count as income for assessment purposes?

Also single parents can no longer sit on benefits their whole life. New legislation means that once the youngest child reaches 7 the parent is no longer entitled to benefits or something along those lines.

Expat, your guess is as good as mine. Those ads for benefit cheats really make my blood boil. Why should they demonise people earning a few quid on the side which pales into insignificance compared to all the money they found to pour into rescuing the banks and the expenses corruption.

Do think that the whole system needs looking at. Just don't know how this maintenance/benefits overhaul will work in practice.

'New legislation means that once the youngest child reaches 7 the parent is no longer entitled to benefits or something along those lines.'

No, it means the parent is moved onto income-based Job Seeker's Allowance.

Yes and so can be forced into training or have any payments stopped etc, it has to be a step in the right direction surely.

JSA is a joke. The only thing you're compelled to do on JSA is a gateway to work and then a placement every 6 months if you're under 25 and every 18 months if you're over 25.

Do ge the point someone made earlier about IS being for the adult.

I was on IS once for about 4 months when I lost my job. As I had a child and could have stayed on it for years they sent an interrogator from the CSA to make me give DD's dads name. Yet a friend of mine was single but hated working and was entitled to IS all the same, apart from £15 extra that I got for DD. I argued this point with the gestapo CSA at the time, they wanted him to pay towards my IS. WTF?????

Realise it has now moved on and the child element is CTC or whatever they call it now.

This was years ago so apologies for being out of date.

"JSA is a joke. The only thing you're compelled to do on JSA is a gateway to work and then a placement every 6 months if you're under 25 and every 18 months if you're over 25."

Reason being is because the government cut thousands of civil service jobs even though they knew there was a threat of a recession. Therefore staff has barely got time to sign people let alone make sure they are actively seeking and helping with job searches

But, my point - Jaqueline - is that many single mothers aren't.

my Dh's ex is NOT a lone parent. My DH is a full and active parent. Pays 100% of the kids needs, pays maintanence, has the kids 40-50% of the time.

Why should my Dh's ex be able to act like she is in need of benefits, when she is NOT?

She did (albeit many years ago) get free meals for the kids because she was a single mother. FFS!!! She has a gorgeous house (no mortgage to worry about) and drove a BRAND NEW convertible Saab (and no payments to worry about).

Benefits are for those IN NEED. Not for those people who fall under some bracket (like lone parents) - lots of married couples could do with a bit of a break too.
And that's not a dig at true lone parents, but (even though I'm married) I'm looking after 2 kids under 2 alone 5 days a week, because my DH has to work away to earn enough to pay for Ex's maintanence. that she gets the money, but is eligble for benefits, while we (who do NOT have access to the money) are not eliglbe because we are married, well - it sucks .

So this is an issue rather close to my heart.

''Reason being is because the government cut thousands of civil service jobs even though they knew there was a threat of a recession. Therefore staff has barely got time to sign people let alone make sure they are actively seeking and helping with job searches''

Onadietcokebreak - the only thing I think we can agree with is that this Government doesn't know it's arse from it's elbow.

Lets face facts here, the type on person who is happy to sit on benefits for the rest of their lives, is hardly going to be getting a ton of money each week in maintenance are they.

Don't get me wrong here please, I believe where possible the parents should always support the child and not the tax payer. I just hate the attitude that everyone on benefits is a scrounger stealing from the rest of the public.

so many absent parents dodge the csa,they assume the taxpayer picks up the tab for their kids,so its ok for them to pocket all their earnings! surely its those parent who should be penalised....csa do a rubbish job of chasing them up,even worse if they are self employed,these absent parents get the best of both worlds.

this post is about housing benefit,and keeping a roof over these childrens head

I agree with you complete, Jaqueline.

But, this sort of policy doesn't nothing to dispell that myth, because it allows (even if's a minority) people who patently don't need benefits to claim them.

So, this sort of blanket policy is only going to fuel those arguments.