Changes to child maintenance system: looking for Mumsnetters' responses to a government consultation

[RowanMumsnet]

The government is considering some fairly major changes to the child maintenance regime (where money for child maintenance is exchanged between parents who have separated), and is asking for the public to give its views on the proposals.

If you're a separated parent who currently uses statutory agencies (such as the CSA/Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission) to arrange financial matters with your ex-partner, these changes could have a significant impact on you - so now's your chance to have your say.

Proposed changes include:

1. A strong emphasis on getting separated parents to make independent arrangements (or 'family-based arrangements') without using statutory agencies. Parents will be strongly encouraged to make their own arranegements, with the help of non-governmental organisations such as Relate, mediation services and so on.
2. For cases in which parents can't come to an independent agreement, there will be a new statutory agency (the Child Maintenance Service) to replace the CSA.
3. Fees will be charged to parents who use the Collection Service aspect of the Child Maintenance Service (ie, in cases where the non-resident parent fails to pay voluntarily and promptly). The non-resident parent will be charged an extra 20% on top of the sum of child maintenance s/he is paying; the parent with care will be charged an extra 7%. The government says: 'We are actively seeking views on the detail of how charging and case closure should operate in practice, and strongly encourage interested parties to submit their views on this. However, we are not consulting on the principle of charging itself as this has already been consulted on extensively.'
4. Fees will not be payable by victims of domestic violence, or by parents who are under 18.
5. Cases that are currently handled by the CSA will gradually be transferred to the new regime.

Further details on these and other changes are available in the consultation document, and further details on how to respond to the consultation are given on this page.

The consultation closes on October 26 2012.

Do please let the government know what you think, either by responding directly to the consultation or by posting on this thread.

Thanks,
MNHQ

Everybody knows - I think the model used in Quebec is much fairer to all parties. But how does it deal with NRP's that are assessed as having to pay £Xx but don't? What happens in the event of non-payment?

IMO, the consequences of non-payment being very clearly set out, on a scale of DoE, Bailiffs, Community Service and then Prison would be the most effective change the CSA in the UK could make.

In Scotland, surprisingly, the level of sanction used is higher than in England - you can take the case to the Sherif's court and they DO apply sanctions, like removal of passport, removal of driving license, and even a 6 week prison sentence. Not that they are used anywhere near enough, mind you, but in England it is significantly less.

When you have sorted out clear consequences, AND ACTUALLY USE THEM, against non-paying NRP's, then the GOOD NRP's will be left alone, and unpenalised by the CSA's rules.

The reason there are blanket rules is purely down to the costs of designing and buying complex enough software to cope with EVERY individual situation. The Government can't afford this.

This means that they have to have a blanket rule for everybody, to protect those who would receive no maintenance otherwise.

How can an NRP or an NRP's partner feel penalised by the NRP being made to support their existing DC's?

I think that if the Government focusses their attention on the NON-PAYING NRP's in the changes to the CSA, and made it a criminal offence not to pay maintenance, then there wouldn't be the need for most of the current rules that appear to 'penalise' some of the minority of DECENT NRP's.

Solve one issue, the other is solved as a side effect.

Couthy pointed out upthread that it is cheaper for the Government not to include CM in benefit calculations.

As an RP I cannot afford to have more children, given that I am already 100% supporting 3 and it would be extremely detrimental to them. The same does not apply to my XP, who thankfully will not be able to have children with his new wife, because otherwise I'm sure he'd have already done it to seal his replacement family quite nicely.

NADM

The new system will not allow the RP to decide to use the system to incur charges for the NRP.

If the RP decides they want to use the CSA route, they will pay the £20 application fee. The NRP then gets to pay directly to the RP regardless of whether the RP wants this or not. Because they are using direct pay there is no charges. They will only be swapped to the CSA collecting payment if they default. They will then incur charges because of their own actions.
Then will then be allowed back to direct pay thus getting rid of the charges if they have paid properly for so long, however this is only with the agreement of the RP!!

In order to avoid RPs keeping NRPs on CSA collection longer than necessary they have decided to charge RPs too so that they have an incentive to change back to direct pay.

x posted.

Do you know what NADM? I think I'm going to leave it there TBH. We've crossed swords so many times, on so many threads that I think it's just pointless to carry on the same arguments over and over again.

My concern is for the majority. I fully admit that. I think we should be in a position where AT THE VERY LEAST the stats are reversed. I literally cannot see how anyone can argue that the 3/5 not getting maintenance, isn't a SHAMING figure and something that needs to be addressed - and NOT by charging parents to try and get some sort of payment from a non paying NRP.

Nope, not backtracking at all.

I am saying that NO reduction in maintenance should be necessary for the NRP's new DC's, be they SDC's or bio DC's. If there absolutely HAS to continue to be a reduction, then in my eyes it should only be for Bio DC's, as SDC's should be receiving maintenance from THEIR NRP.

I couldn't afford to have DC's with any future partners, therefore I am getting sterilised in October, despite only being 31.

So I agree with you on that one, allnew!

Actually thinking about it a solution which would hopefully resolve this would be for the government not to charge RPs collection charges for 6 months after the NRPs actions (i.e. non payment) forcing the collection service to be used. After 6 months if the NRP has proved they will pay the amount to the CSA every month without fail, then the option would be for them to return to direct pay and thus removing the additional 20% charges. However if the RP doesnt want to trust this, they then start to incur the 7% charges. thus penalising the RPs who would be using the CSA for spiteful reasons
If after 6 months the NRP is still not paying properly then the RP doesnt incur charges, until they have done 6 months of paying properly.

This way the NRP only is penalised for not paying and the RP is only penalised when they wont allow a decent maintenance paying NRP to pay directly.

I agree, I couldn't have more children because I couldn't afford them, or even have the time to look for a bloke to have them with.

The ex on the other hand has had another child, left the mother and I predict that he isn't at the end of his fathering (in the medical sense of the word) days!

NotaDisneyMum - EOW don't stop BOTH parents, the RP and the NRP, from working alternate weekends.

My Ex-P did just that. He applied for flexible working, as is his right as a parent with PR, and asked to have EOW off work. Why the issue, when there is legislation there to help both the RP and the NRP with that?

In my last job, I worked one weekend, when the DC's were away, only having to find childcare for my DD as at that time she had no contact with her father, and my ex worked the other weekend when I had the DC's.

So no, I don't believe at all that EOW stops the NRP from working weekends at all. Or the RP for that matter.

MagicLlama has the best suggestion there. That seems fair to me as an RP, as long as the case was kept open with the CSA so that in the event of the NRP stopping payments after they go back to direct payments, the RP can get the CSA to chase for the arrears, rather than having to do so themselves.

The new system will not allow the RP to decide to use the system to incur charges for the NRP.

But the new system is not yet in place, it is being consulted on, so this is currently a proposal, not a definite - and is part of the proposal that I agree with.

Shirley I have no problem with anyone standing up for what they think is right for themselves and the majority - but I'm not in the majority at the moment, and I can't bring myself to support a proposal that will directly disadvantage my own DC's, no matter how many other DC's benefit.

The reason for prioritising those DC's who don't see their absent parents over those that do is because of the expense in computer software that can cope equally well with both (all) situations.

So if someone HAS to be prioritised, surely it SHOULD be the DC that already has no emotional support from their NRP? To say they should lose some of that financial support too is just wrong.

MagicLlama has a good suggestion I think. That seems fair, maintenance direct is still overseen by the CSA, and arrears still accrued is CM is unpaid. I would suggest though that after that cycle has been done once/twice and the NRP still avoids paying when on direct payments that that option is removed entirely and the NRP be forced to keep having payments collected and paying for that.

As I said, I would have been happy to use maintenance direct, all I really wanted from the CSA was a calculation and the option of enforcement should XP not pay - I knew he would be unlikely to not pay something ordered by the CSA. He must have chosen to pay via the CSA though because that's how the money came.

"In my last job, I worked one weekend, when the DC's were away, only having to find childcare for my DD as at that time she had no contact with her father, and my ex worked the other weekend when I had the DC's."

I did similar, but unfortunately XP started refusing to have them so that I was unable to work :(

So no, I don't believe at all that EOW stops the NRP from working weekends at all. Or the RP for that matter.

Plenty of MN threads contradict this view, couthy - employers can take their pick from hundreds of jobseekers at the moment, and if faced with a choice between an applicant who can work every weekend, or cover at short notice/extra hours etc, or one who wants to negotiate flexible hours, guess which one the employer will pick?

Couthy and Shirley

My understanding is that if youve paid for the CSA application then yes even using direct pay would still be under the CSA juridstiction IYSWIM, so that not paying incurs arrears, which is key for NRPs who are not paying, and irrelevant for NRPs who are.

Yes perhaps there should be a limit on how often they can go on and off without the RP incurring charges, although I still think you perhaps need to give them another chance, but maybe the 6 month time limit would need to be looked at
so first breach - 6 month limit
2nd breach - 12 month limit
3rd breach - 24 month limit

or something like that.

I have raised my children without any financial support for the past 15 years. Again, it is not my fault that their father has refused to pay, so why should they be penalised in any way shape or form?

I am not in the minority, of the people that I know in separated families, I know one parent who receives regular direct pay maintenance; one who receives regular payment via the CSA as he mucked her about so much with the odd £20 here and the odd £15 there that she HAD to go to the CSA in order to get some stability; one father who has CM deducted from his wages, and 6 LP's who receive no maintenance at all (not including myself), of those 6, 4 have given up and trust karma to play it's role and the other two are going through the CSA mill.

The thing that is so infuriating is being made to feel like a grasper or a money hungry, bitter ex who has the audacity to expect financial support from the parent of my children, it's particularly galling when the government get in on the act.

"Couthy pointed out upthread that it is cheaper for the Government not to include CM in benefit calculations"

Well it's also cheaper for them to pay CB as a universal benefit rather than a means-tested one, but it's not stopping them from those plans. They're proceeding as a matter of principle

couthy The model in quebec is tied to the government and the non-payers are treated very promptly and harshly. They are treated like tax evaders and therefore the government is entitled to prosecute to get the money the children should receive. As far as I know if you owe money to the government they are allowed to block your bank account and pay themselves.

Also, the minute a residence order is issued by the court, it is sent straight to the Chid Support Agency who will then enforce what has to be paid to who and by whom.

That said, both parties can also come to their own agreement but must submit it to the court to be granted the exemption of having to deal with the CSA.

Right, I've just sat and read the whole thing rather than scanning through kids watching CBeebies

So the exemption for DV is only for the initial fee, not the collection fees. Collection will only be enforced if the NRP fails to pay, so PWC will not be able to apply for enforcement out of spite. Charges to the PWC are to encourage them to allow the NRP to return to Direct Pay should the NRP request it after a period of enforcement. The NRP will face additional charges should other methods of enforcement (DOE, court action etc) be needed. I think that it's probably as fair as it's ever going to be, but I still really think it is short sighted to expect that any significant proportion of separating couples will be able to make long-standing private arrangements, no matter what the statistics say. If that was likely, people would already be doing it. For many people, even attempting negotiations isn't really possible.

Benefits claimants will have their payment increased to £10 pw, and charges if necessary will be on top of this (so £12 paid if CSA is collecting the payment, and the PWC will receive £9.30). I think that's fair enough but would like to see this extended to NRPs declaring nil income, even if it's accrued as arrears.

The questions are somewhat limited I think, but here goes:

Question 1
Is our ?self declared? approach, guarantee of no contact with ex-partners and exemption from the upfront charge sufficiently inclusive to ensure that there are no barriers to victims of domestic violence?

I think Complexity covered this well upthread. As she said, I can see this being another reason women are accused of lying about DV. Certain fathers' groups already accuse women of lying about DV in child contact cases.

Question 2
Is seven per cent an appropriate level of charge for this personalised service?

There should only be a charge if the PWC doesn't agree to return to Direct Pay. The document says the NRP will only be allowed to return to Direct Pay if the CSA are satisfied s/he will continue to make payments, so if at this point the PWC would prefer to continue having the collection service collect the money then charging is (in context of charging going ahead regardless) reasonable, as is the percentage.

Question 3
In focusing on the severity of the enforcement action, rather than the actual cost, have we adopted the right approach to enforcement charging?

Yes, although I think in the most severe cases of CM avoidance the Government should seek to have as much of their costs covered by the NRP as possible.

Question 4
Have we taken the right approach to enforcement charges within the payment hierarchy?

Yes.

Question 5
In proposing a 30-day notice period in reactive case closure, have we reached a reasonable balance between the interests of new applicants in having a short notice period and the interests of existing clients in having an extended period?

I think a month is fair for the first applicant to decide, but the new applicant should be able to receive arrears from the date of application once the decision has been made.

Question 6
How can we best harness the expertise of the voluntary and community sector and other partners to ensure that the right help is provided to clients during the period of case closure?

I don't work in these sectors so difficult to say.

Question 7
Is six months a reasonable period for both parents to consider their options for child maintenance in proactive case closure cases, where we end liability in the existing CSA case as part of the process?

Yes.

Question 8
How can we ensure that voluntary and community sector and other partners are aware of the closure process to enable them to provide support for parents to reach their own collaborative, family-based arrangements?

As Q6.

Question 9
Once cases being managed manually have been closed, we are proposing to closing the remaining ?on system? cases on the basis of ?oldest first?. Is closing on system cases on the basis of age of case the right approach?

Given what it says in your consultation document about the oldest cases having the highest proportion of nil liability assessments, yes probably.

Question 10
What evidence should the Government consider as part of the 30-month review? Which variables and criteria would you consider to show success of the new scheme?

In how many cases is maintenance being received, is it the correct amount, is it being paid by Direct Pay or by collection.
Of those not using the CSA (especially former users), are they receiving child maintenance regularly and accurately and is it the equivalent amount they would receive via CSA.
How are complex cases (multiple PWC or NRP on the same claims for example) being handled.

Just as an aside, I'm a PWC who has an excellent relationship with the father of my children, so I have personal experience of NRPs being excellent, responsible parents

Parent surely as in singular not plural?

What I mean is again sadly one persons good experience is not representative of the majority.

Most NRPs are not excellent or responsible.

So basically never mind you "minority" opinions, I'd prefer to tar nrps by the same brush

So how would it work as ex has had no contact with ds (15) for over a decade, I don't know where he lives.
CSA currently does a deductions of earnings order as he refused to pay voluntarily, I'm assuming that they will not pass his details on to me as it would be a data protection issue??
How would I then be able to come to an agreement with him?

I find the CSA a PITA to be honest. For over a year they deducted money from ex then paid it to another parent with care (apparently he is still having more children?!). I called every month, they apologised then did it again. Ended up opening a new bank account and changing details so I could start getting money.

TBH that isn't really a service I want to pay for! It wasn't my fault or technically ex's. It was the CSA's, bet they would still have charged me every month!
Every month without fail the maintenance gets stuck in the 'secondary systems' every month without fail I call up to get it released.
Between that and other issues that arises very frequently and the phone calls costing so much in the end that I now pay £5 extra on my phone tariff to get free 0845 numbers. Can I take that off my 7% please??

So basically never mind you "minority" opinions, I'd prefer to tar nrps by the same brush

Did I say that?

Its not me tarring anyone with the brush. Those that won't pay do that themselves.