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

CM I think when you have experience of something you tend to use that to help people - so you are naturally drawn to that side of life.

Ive helped my fair share of people battling to see their children, you've helped your fair share of abuse victims.

But I do think that then gives us a skewed view of The world and that most people aren't one extreme or the other - but happily moderate.

And I agree CSA are useless.

MummyOfMystery - I see your point, but have also helped plenty of men who weren't seeing their DC's to either come to an amicable agreement, or go through court to gain access. The difference is that they were willingly paying the maintenance required. So I DO know that there ARE good NRP's out there, BUT the majority AREN'T. And those are the ones that the CSA are there to deal with.

Yes, I get that it is unfortunate that blanket policies are necessary, due to cost issues, but I don't see that as disadvantaging GOOD NRP's, but to disadvantage BAD NRP's.

Yes, I think that in an ideal world, all benefits to do with a child should be split between the RP and the NRP, based on the same percentage as the split in contact, but because the majority of NRP's won't then take on an equal split of costs involved in that DC's upbringing, there HAS to be that protection there for the CHILD in that situation, that their RP isn't left way below the poverty line trying to pay 100% of the costs other than food out of 50% of the money. You CAN'T remove that protection by saying that the benefits should be split between the RP and the NRP at an equal percentage to the access split WITHOUT removing the protection from poverty for that CHILD.

And that is where the crux of these issues lies.

If the powers that were already available to the CSA, but are rarely used, to penalise feckless NRP's who make no attempt to support their DC's financially, (emotionally through access is a different issue, as access is separate from maintenance), were actually used and enforced, then this might not be such an issue, and the benefits anomaly could possibly be rectified.

And if there were measures in place to restore the split benefits to the RP in the event that the NRP is not using them to effectively support the child (buying no clothes, buying no shoes or uniform, not contributing to school trips, not contributing to after school activities etc), then it would be fine to do this. But as the costs of investigating each and every disputed case would be astronomical, I can't see a way around it, without the DWP/ HMRC creating a whole new department, and running it with enough staff to quickly and fairly assess disputed cases, which would create extra burden on the State when there are ongoing cuts in every area.

How would you fund this, NotaDisneyMum, allnew etc? Because if the benefits that are paid in respect of the child are split, there WILL be disputed cases, especially when the RP is still having to cover all other costs except food while the DC is with its NRP.

I can't see any way around that, because while YOUR partners or Ex's WOULD pay properly, and take equal responsibility for the costs involved in bringing up that DC, many, MANY NRP's WOULDN'T, and there WILL be disputed cases, which WILL cost money to investigate.

Still think HB should be paid to both the NRP and the RP though, you can't pick up a bedroom and move it between houses, unlike clothing, toys etc. THAT really pisses me off. It was only 3 years of fighting that got my local council to accept that given the split of access, DS1 needed to be included on both council housing applications, as, well, YOU CAN'T MOVE A CHUFFING BEDROOM, OR EVEN A 3ftx6ft SPACE TO FIT A BLOODY BED IN.

TBF when you are spending £1000 a month on solicitors fees - there may not be much left to pay maint as well - more so now legal aid is gone re custody disputes.

Mummy, but the maintenance should come first, not the legal fees. Self represent, I have to.

I can say why I disagree about the changes in one line:
All who access the CSA do because that is the last resort after years of trying and failing to get a self organised agreement to work.

I think it would far more efficient and cost effective for child maintenance payments to be managed in the way student loans payments are dealt with: income info to be taken from IR records and payment taken off salary automatically, rather than spending YEARS and lots of money chasing a parent who doesn't want to provide a frank and honest disclosure of his real income.

If they need to charge, they need to charge the infringing parent, not the one already struggling with making ends meet while taking most responsibility for bringing the children up.

Exactly. The forthcoming link with HMRC is a good thing.

Still doesn't solve the SE hiding their income by declaring it as their partners though. That NEEDS to be fixed.

If under the forthcoming Universal Credit rules a person with a SE income of under NMW levels will be ASSUMED to be earning NMW regardless of whether they actually ARE or not, why can't the same principle be applied to maintenance, regardless of whether the NRPP earns too much for them to qualify for UC?

That would close that loophole to a certain extent, and at least guarantee around £20 a week maintenance for the child. Any variations based on inconsistent lifestyle would then be additional, rather than a fight to get ANYTHING.

Why won't the Government actually take STRONG action to close the SE loophole?

We did too, (self rep), and it easier now LA is removed, but DH spent £12k in a year - and that was while the other child was living with him.

Ex paid £500 on a pilot scheme.

Second year was self repped.

And although I don't think children should have to struggle - IMO if an RP is forcing a good and decent NRP through the courts - then I do question their right to maint while they are emotionally abusing their children.

CM the govt is reluctant to tackle anything.

I think there should be a body that considers the overall picture.

I have just gone through all the 49 pages of the document and it seems pretty good actually and a big improvement from the current scheme.

I still don't understand why the parent with care has to pay 7% of the calculated amount when the non resident parent would be already paying 20% over the calculated mainteinance if they decide to yse the service.

The parameters set to avoid having to pay those extras seems, at least in theory, a reliable one. But why it would end costing the separated parents 27% I have no idea.

In my case my ex can more than comfortably pay 18% of his declared net salary, but having the maintenance amount my son would get it won't make things easier in this house where is already difficult, but considering my ex has been under paying maintenance for more than 4 years, perhaps is a cost worth paying

Ehere did half of my ext went??? I'll rewrite that later if I can...

Agree 1345% about closing the loop about the self employed, but how that could be done, I have no idea!

Haven't read the thread as it would make my blood boil. I expect I am repeating what a lot of others have said. But...

The idea that the parent doing most or in many cases all of the care has to pay for this service is, IMO, disgusting. If charges need to be introduced, only charge the parent who has not been paying enough to their child. Many people (as MN will know) are already very reluctant to use CSA as they fear it will anger the other parent, disrupt contact etc and charging is only going to put them off more.

A lone parent who is being messed around re maintenance told me recently she would not use CSA as they would take some of the money so she prefered to carry on getting messed about by her ex, on the off chance he suddenly became reasonable.

We need to stop beating on the parents who are doing their best for their children. Many people only resort to CSA when they are in financial difficulties and I don't think it is fair to take money from these families.

The dv thing seems such a wide definition I wonder if it is workable? Emotional abuse is not exactly clear cut issue. Are they going to check with my employer of 10 years ago to see if I disclosed any abuse?

All who access the CSA do because that is the last resort after years of trying and failing to get a self organised agreement to work.

I'm going to use this comment as a chance to reiterate my very first point on this thread, as it has got lost in the bunfight a bit and I think it needs to be taken into account before the final legislation is put in place

If a NRP is subject to any form of debt repayment plan, CM payments to the CSA are disregarded when the repayment calculations are carried out. The CM is protected from being used to repay creditors. Privately agreed CM is not protected in this way - and so NRP with debt are advised to use the CSA - even if they can come to an agreement with the PWC.

How are the new rules going to ensure that CM payments are not pushed to the bottom of the list of priorities in cases where debt management/repayment is in place?

I havent read this whole thread but I was wondering whether proof will need to be provided in domestic abuse cases as I can see a lot of people claiming this so they don't have to pay.
I also want to know why the NRP would have to pay 20% when it may be the RP being un-cooperative. Not all NRP are trying to evade paying maintenance but it almost feels like they will be 'punished' even more for doing the right thing when is may be the RP that makes it difficult to come to a private arangement.

I know not everycase is the same which is why it fustrates me so much that it seems to be one set of rules for every situation rather than taking things into consideration.

I do think however that the fee should be the same for both RP and the NRP because I know in my situation the RP wouldn't bat an eye-lid about paying 7% in order to cause my Dh to pay 20%.

What I have read seems to focus on the PWC rather than from the POV of the NRP which I don't think is fair in all cases.

RhiRhi, the NRP will only have to pay an additional 20% if the maintenance has to be collected by the CSA, which will only happen if s/he has not paid via direct pay. PWC will not be able to request that money is collected by the CSA. The PWC will have to pay 7% even though it will not be their fault that the CSA are collecting and passing on the money. The document states that the 7% charge is designed to be an incentive to the PWC allowing the NRP to return to direct pay if the CSA are satisfied s/he will now pay regularly.

I'm just reading a local magazine that has a column by a local solicitor. Perhaps I missed this when I skim read the 49 pages if the , but what are your views in maintenance payments to be stopped when both parents share childcare duties on a 50/50 basis?
It would be the fair thing to do, if only the salaries of the parents were roughly the same...

Thanks optimist I havent had time to read the doc properly im going to print it off.

I thought it was either an arrangment with the RP (which we have tried and failed with due her constant demand for more money hence why it now goes through the CSA) or through the CSA paying a fee. I had visions of it going back to how it was for us pre CSA.

No, from the document what will happen is:

Parents will have to access some sort of gateway system which will advise them about making a private arrangement, offer details about mediation etc. Once they have gone through this they give the parent a unique code to then go through to the next stage.

One parent then applies to the CSA, for a one off £20 charge (obviously this will mostly be the PWC). The CSA will access the NRP's income for the previous year via HMRC records, make an assessment of how much maintenance is due and create a schedule of payments for the next year which will be sent to both parents. They will reassess this every year for no additional charge.

The NRP then pays the PWC directly, either by a method decided between them or, if preferred, the CSA will direct them to (or possibly provide, it wasn't clear) a go-between service - something like Paypal I should imagine - meaning that they don't have each other's bank details.

If the NRP pays on schedule, the CSA's involvement stops there, save for reassessments.

If the NRP doesn't pay, the PWC would contact the CSA who would (supposedly) move to having the NRP pay the CSA and the CSA pay the PWC. At this point, collection charges of 20% to the NRP and 7% to the PWC will be levied. So if the maintenance should be £100, the NRP will pay £120 and the PWC will receive £93.

If the NRP then starts to pay regularly, s/he can request to go back to direct pay. If the CSA consider that s/he will continue to make payments via direct pay they will ask the PWC. The 7% charge is meant to be a deterrent to the PWC saying no at this point.

If s/he still doesn't pay, the CSA will move to DOE, court action etc, and the NRP will be given a fixed rate charge for those (£50 for DOE for example).

ah ok thanks - it does seem a bit fairer but i don't think you can ever determine how it will work till it's actually in place.

Do you know when they are proposing the change?

It says new cases from October this year, existing cases will change over on an "oldest cases first" basis between (I think) 2014 and 2017. So by 2017, all CSA1 and CSA2 cases will be closed. Supposedly. Government schedules really should be taken with a generous pinch of salt

By 2017 we shouldn't be paying maintenance anymore!

Thats true maybe by 2025 then!

Oldest cases first? Crap, I assume that means teenagers cases first then. They also mention hand worked cases first too, which means Bolton Clerical cases.

All of which means that DD's case will be in one of the first lot to be swapped over, as she is 14yo, and her case has been open since 1998, payments only commencing in 2011...and it's a clerical case on Bolton. They wrote off his arrears too. (I got £5,000 compensation for that, from the CSA, after a massive legal battle. He owed me £17,000. I settled with the CSA for less than half as I felt bad because it was taxpayers money, basically, not from him.)

Oh, DEEP JOY at more than likely being one of the first cases transferred.

mummyof.

you had 1 living with you she had 1 living with her? so any benefits or tax credits recived by her should have reflected this. if the df of the sdc residing with you failed to inform relivant agencys like cb/csa ect hows that the other parents fault?
if it was done her income would have reduced accordingly and as such her maintainance liability.as would the dad as the pwc of that dc having an additional resident dc.both parents recive a liability discount for any resident kids they have

if she lied to the relivant benefit agencys then she commited fraud as your post implys the csa assesed her for paying maintainance for the dc who lived with you then its a matter of benefit fraud not a csa maintainance issue other than a none payment one and could have been resolved by enforcement action or direct benefit deductions.

it appears to read that your not happy that your dp had to pay maintainance to her but your also not happy that she didnt pay maintainance to him.so why go all around the houses and just not say that?

its blatently obvious that for what ever reason you dislike this woman is any of that helpfull at all to a consultation about changes to the csa?

it is widly known that lots of nrps either dont comply with the csa/divert self employed income to a partner/resent every penny they have to pay to a rp thats why the csa was set up to target the deadbeats. it is also known that the ones who the csa tends to target far more effectivly are the honest ones it is also known that some rp's may use it out of spite (even though im at a loss to understand why wanting a certain % lowered to reflect households circumstances contact and travel for contact is spitefull.as in therory if you have an honest ex who had no issues with paying a fair ammount you wouldnt need the csa).

you do not appear to understand that children should be maintained in accordance with the relivant income,if the income decreases so does the ammount you have to pay. a nil income nrp has no maintainance liability. irrispective of interpersonal relationships. its not that hard to get your head round

Argh! And because all my other cases are linked, that means all of my other cases will be transferred at the same time. Fuckery and bollocks.

A reassessment now on DS1's dad will probably see him having to pay £10 out of his benefits, which will enrage his partner, as he is no longer having 50-50 care (his partner isn't safe for DS1 to be around, long story, SS were involved etc.)

And DS2 & 3's dad I am on maintenance direct with, and they will reassess him to pay more than he is currently paying 'officially', hope that doesn't cause him arrears when he is actually paying MORE anyway, to cover the fact that it's an old assessment.

Aaarrgghh! I'm going to have to warn all 3 Ex's!