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

As couthy says, the government has issued advice for years to NRP to prevent the RP from abusing the system and claiming arrears despite payments being made.

What advice is the DWP going to issue to NRP to ensure that they aren't subject to false 'self-declarations' under the new system?

Allnew - I DON'T believe it is his 'fault', I do however believe that there are plenty of things he could have done to protect himself from an ex who had already proven themselves to be untrustworthy.

And you have posted about that point many many many many times on this thread already. Do you understand the phrase "point made". I said above he was probably naive and knows better now. Why on earth are you still harping on about it

I would be interested to hear that too, NotaDisneyMum.

What about if the NRP claims DV? How will that work? It is quite possible that an NRP left the relationship due to DV but didn't report it.

couthy interesting that you assume I'm referring to my DP.

It's my ex who pays regularly

harping on? no wonder you spend your life baffled.

(Statistically more NRP's are Male, and statistically less males report DV even where it happens to them)

Agreed. Dh didn't report it when his ex hit him during his marriage

Hmm, that IS interesting.

I jumped to an assumption there, I apologise!

So what I want to know, are the DV arrangements only there to stop the RP from paying to use the CSA, or will that work the same for an NRP who was the victim of DV?

I think if someone makes a point up to say 5 times, then the point has been agreed with, yes, they are harping on.

But still I'm yes, baffled, why Couthymow thinks it's not a problem for the csa to waste resources calling/writing to DH who pays regularly, as opposed to the non-payers. Their resources are finite. If they're wasting resources on him, then some genuines PWC are losing out. I don't understand why anyone would think this isn't a problem.

Allnew

But in theory under the new scheme they wont be wasting resources on chasing a NRP who pays regularly apparently.

Even if his Ex chooses to opt for the CSA route (which will cost her £25 as the applicant) your DP can then choose to pay the ex directly thus avoiding the extra %age charges. He then needs to set up a direct debit marked child maintenance and pay it directly into the exs bank account. They will then be left to it. in theory

The New CSA will then spend their time chasing and enforcing NRPs that dont pay, and then will pass the enforcement charges onto the NRP to pay ontop of their maintenance.

This thread has, very sadly, descended into the personal.

And it's ridiculous bearing in mind that everyone here, bar one or two posters, has agreed that charging to use the service is unfair and unworkable.

I would just like to point out that statistically 3/5 children receive no maintenance. This is the situation which should be addressed.

Yes I suppose under the new system if she keeps calling them then she has to pay each time, covering the costs. But I suppose if they have a limited number of staff, then I'd still prefer them to chase non-payers rather than harrass compliant nrp's. The non-payers aren't suddently just going to become compliant because of the new scheme. 20% of zero is zero.

Shirley but are those 3/5 NRP refusing to pay, or does the current system exempt them from paying?
That makes a Big difference when it comes to making changes to the system, IMO.

Allnew definately, and I think thats what these changes are supposed to be trying to address.

The whole idea is make it so that people who are able to dont use the service freeing up the service for those that do need to use it. Those people that do need to use it are then charged for it.

Great in theory, but in practice ... well ... shrug

Can you tell me NADM who are exempt from paying CM?

That was some bad grammar right there. What I meant was - I don't understand what you mean by the current system exempting someone from paying CM, can you explain this to me?

To be honest, I find this quite distasteful actually. The truth is that more children are not receiving financial support and that stinks. I don't care WHY particularly that might be the case - excuses can be made for any bad behaviour IME - just that it is the case.

If you/your partner/your ex are paying a decent amount of CM every week then I truly cannot understand why there is this desire to paint PWC who are NOT recieving maintenance as anything other than hard done by.

Allnew - I get that chasing those who are paying while ignoring the harder cases is wrong, but that's exactly the reason I am asking about increases in staffing levels. There should be enough staff to do ALL jobs. And maybe it is the ex asking for reassessment?

The CSA can do a reassessment of income once every 6 months, if the RP requests it.

Often, the RP has no choice but to do this, as the NRP doesn't inform the CSA that his income has changed. I'm NOT saying your partner is like that, but again, a lot are.

If ALL NRP's maintenance payments are worked out through the HMRC, and tax payments, then that is one GOOD part of the new system, that will reduce the need for constant reassessments.

If ALL NRP's (not just the 2/5 that pay, which includes those who pay but not what they should, by not declaring a wage rise etc, but also those paying £5/wk from their benefits too) were honest and informed the CSA as soon as their income changed, then this situation would never have arisen.

I'm not saying that NO NRP's contact the CSA to let them know about wage rises, but that not ALL do. And the ones that don't would be bloody quick off the mark to contact the CSA if their income went down.

Yes, it's unfair that decent NRP's get caught up in this, but it's even more unfair (as it's unfair on the children too) when RP's get caught up in the system when their Ex's don't pay what they should be, and they HAVE to go through the CSA to get the correct maintenance due.

Of course they're hard done by, if a parent can pay and isn't paying. Not sure anyone here has disagreed with that point though.

Well, why am I being asked to provide stats on how many of the 3 in 5 children who receive no maintenance are in that situation because the "current system excempt them from paying"?

Why is there the clause of " if a parent can pay and isn't paying". CM should be paid ALWAYS. Under every single circumstance. On benefits? You still should have to pay. NMW job? You still pay.

I think it's tantamount to child neglect not to provide financial support to that child. When that child grows up and finds out that their parent never paid a penny towards their upbringing, never gave any money towards food in their belly, clothes on their back and a roof over their heads then that leaves them feeling pretty shit.

No job or no benefits = unable to pay

"I think it's tantamount to child neglect not to provide financial support to that child" - yet if a pwc doesn't work and doesn't pay it isn't? Because the state provides?

So if the only reasons for an RP to go to the CSA are :

1. Stupidity/Greed/Misplaced spite. (Not going to change things for a compliant NRP)

2. Self-protection against financial/emotional abuse

3. To avoid contact with a perpetrator of DV, OR

4. Out of necessity as their Ex won't pay at all, or won't pay what they should be paying,

Then why change the one bit of the CSA that wasn't actually broken?

This is smoke and mirrors stuff going on here. If both parents are on benefits then why should one half not have to "donate" some of their benefits towards the financial support of their child?