Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Child Maintenance Service (CMS) - Imbalance in rules impacting single parents - Demographic is typically women

24 replies

patsy11 · 02/09/2018 00:39

Apologies if this is not in the right place.

I have had 18 months of frustration with the Child Maintenance Service as well as frustration with finding help without emptying my bank account.

The majority of single parents are women, some say this is because courts give women custody, I think because women are more willing to step up to the mark and take responsibility for our child and everything that entails including the financial cost. The current CMS system in place will force you to fight for financial support if the Non Resident Parent is intent on shirking their financial responsibility.

I just wanted to part my knowledge in the hope it would help other single parents out there... male or female but the sad fact is that the majority of resident parents are women so this is most definitely a woman's issue.

The folks at CMS work within the constraints of a system and even if blatantly obvious to us mere mortals it is unfair they are unable to do anything differently. They are also not very helpful at telling you what you need to do to progress something.

A place to get advice - Google NACSA (www.nacsa.co.uk). It cost me £30 to get advice from this organisation for 1 month over the phone. Much cheaper than a solicitor.They also do one to one consultations.

MANDATORY RECONSIDERATION and APPEALING
CM Payments are typically based on historical earnings from the previous tax year. Thus if the Non Resident Parent moves from being on benefits to actually working for a company the CMS will not update their payments until the annual review picks up the HRMC tax year with these wages in. Thus you will have to wait at least 12 months but possible up to 2 years before your payments increase from £7 a week. Yes it is unfair but unless your ex willingly tells CMS his income has increased or you can find out where they are working no one has to do anything. Sucks I know.

BUT YOU CAN DO SOMETHING. Tell CMS your ex is now working (as soon as you know) and you believe his income will have increased sufficiently for them to raise a "Change of Income". If you have no proof and your ex gives them no information it will be rejected. If they reject the Change of Income ask for a mandatory reconsideration. When the mandatory reconsideration is rejected you will receive a letter that will allow you to appeal to an independent tribunal.
I know this sounds like a long process but at a tribunal you can put forward evidence that can be taken into account by a person not a computer. I.e. my payments were based on my ex earning £10 a week. This would not cover renting a flat, paying bills, holidays, maintaining a car, and he had confirmed to CMS that he was working but provided not details. 12 Months down the line CMS have actually given me some more evidence - His earnings for the previous tax year.

I have 3 independent tribunals in the pipeline:
2 for change of income
1 for effective date of payments

Maybe if enough of us make Mandatory Reconsideration requests and Appeals they might actually fix the system! - I'm ever hopeful

I have heard that CMS may move to the Universal Credit system which would make more sense but I would wait on this as the Government agencies tend to work at a snails pace.

Good luck and I hope that if you are reading this you are not in dire financial straights. I come across lots of mum's who seems to be having problems with CMS but many have neither the financial means or energy to tackle the system understandably. Big hugs to all the single parents (mums and dads) out there trying to get by.

CMS payments 12% of Gross Income for one child, 16% for more - it's not a drop in the ocean and a resident typically parent has to dig a hell of a lot deeper.

OP posts:
newishtofacetinkering · 02/09/2018 01:40

I'm really interested in this topic but don't have any direct experience. My mum has a few friends who were pretty much failed by the system and it makes me angry just thinking about it. I always think this should be a priority for feminists just because it's one of the few areas where the law could make a real difference. And also it just affects so many people. Interested to see people who have experience here give their assessment of the situation....

vodkaredbullgirl · 02/09/2018 01:53

It took me 3 yrs to get cm from my ex, he didnt reply to their request. Eventually i got cm for my 2. When they changed i came to an arrangement with my ex. When my eldest went to uni it stopped for her, my other dd we came to an agreement, since she turned 18 and when he thought she wasnt going to college he stopped paying over 6 months ago. To be honest i cba to try again, ive been struggling since he stopped paying in feb.

Ive been doing overtime since i started doing nightshifts at work. It killing me sometimes to work so many shifts to keep on top of things.

MrsTerryPratchett · 02/09/2018 02:03

My theory is have the NRP owe the government, based on what they believe they can earn, and have the government pay the RP. And if you don't pay, it's like not paying taxes...

arranfan · 02/09/2018 08:19

have the NRP owe the government, based on what they believe they can earn, and have the government pay the RP

MrsTerryPratchett - may I say how much I applaud your elegant proposal? Given that CSA levy 20% (iirc) if you have to get the to intervene, I can't believe that your proposal would cost more.

FanWithoutAGuard · 02/09/2018 08:52

MrsTP - yes, that makes absolute sense. Children are paid for, and I'm sure the Inland Revenue could take over and be very efficient at reclaiming the money owed (and after all, they are aware of all the earnings too - they're perfectly placed)

redexpat · 02/09/2018 15:29

My theory is have the NRP owe the government, based on what they believe they can earn, and have the government pay the RP. And if you don't pay, it's like not paying taxes...

Exactly how it happens in Denmark. And if the absent parent is on benefits the cm is deducted at the source.

PipeTheFuckDown · 02/09/2018 15:36

My ex has dodged it for 2.5 years now. In short -

  • works for 6-12 weeks
  • quits
  • goes on JSA for 6-12 weeks

Rinse and repeat

This means I’ve never had a payment. It takes HMRC too long to pass new work place information over, so no Deduction from Earnings or Benefits can be set up.

Liability Order granted in 2017. Bailiffs were unsuccessful for 6 months, due to him sleeping on his sisters sofa and not being on the tenancy agreement.

Criminal prosecution to remove his driving licence won’t work as he doesn’t drive.

They tried to prosecute and aim for prison time - BUT if he is on JSA, they aren’t allowed to as he doesn’t have the means to repay the debt. This takes 16 weeks to set up and has been stop start for the last 12 months due to this loophole.

I’m baffles as to how he manage a to keep reclaiming JSA.

It’s fucking outrageous.

My Grandparents think it should be paid to me from the Government, they then recoup from at double what he should have paid me, with high fines and prison time with no fucking loopholes for being on the dole.

womanformallyknownaswoman · 02/09/2018 15:50

My theory is have the NRP owe the government, based on what they believe they can earn, and have the government pay the RP. And if you don't pay, it's like not paying taxes...

Yes, I've heard of this and seems a much better approach. It's unfair for an already burdened single parent (mostly women) to have to fight hostile exes and hostile systems for money that is rightfully due to them - it's an unreasonable expectation. Let the state take the withholding party on and hold them to account.

NeverTwerkNaked · 02/09/2018 15:55

I totally agree, NRP should owe the govt and then govt. can choose how draconian to be.
It’s not fair that CMS has so few teeth. The crappy dads know it and take advantage of it!

Radardetector · 02/09/2018 16:20

My theory is have the NRP owe the government, based on what they believe they can earn, and have the government pay the RP. And if you don't pay, it's like not paying taxes...

Surely cms is backed by the government so that the government doesn't have to financially support single mums.

Plus if the nrp doesn't pay cms and you need it you will likely get extra benefits, thus being propped up by the state.

In the above suggestion, what would happen when rp is well off and doesn't need cms, they still get tax payers money? Would they always pay the 12% whether the nrp is a millionaire or on jsa. So the government could end up paying for footballers illigitimate kids to live in luxury, while the kids of the poor stay living in poverty.

Nice idea but don't think it really works practically, there's not enough funding for many much needed services without paying single parents money they potentially don't need. We'd be better off increasing benefits for those single parents that really need the support and providing better more affordable child care to help single parents maximise their earnings.

PipeTheFuckDown · 02/09/2018 16:48

You don’t get extra benefits of the NRP doesn’t pay Confused

Radardetector · 02/09/2018 17:29

You don’t get extra benefits of the NRP doesn’t pay

Cms payments are taken into consideration when claiming benefits. So you may not be eligible for benefits if in receipt of cms. If the cms stops and your income decreases, you may then become eligible for benefits.

So if you don't get cms from nrp you may well be eligible to claim benefits that you otherwise wern't entitled too to prop up your single parent income.

PlatypusPie · 02/09/2018 17:43

PipeTheFuckDown

😟 Presumably he is earning more than JSA when he does work, so is doing this ridiculous on/off cms avoidance manoeuvre to spite you - but also cutting his own standard of living at the same time ? Why would anyone want to devote headspace to doing that rather than just get on with life ? ( I realise that the answer is that he Is not a decent, responsible human being ) Outrageous is right. .

sprinklesandsauce · 02/09/2018 17:50

Thanks for the info. My XH is paying just £27 a week based on self employed income of around 4 years ago. Now that he is employed, I asked him to increase it but the amount he offered doesn't equate to 40 hpw at NMW, so he is clearly lying. (and then he didn't increase it because I told him I was going to CSA to get it checked)!

I rang CMS, but it will be based on last years tax return as you say, so still wouldn't be based on what he is actually earning right now.

It should be linked to HMRC some way, so that as soon as the wages are filed online by the employer, HMRC calculate the amount due in CM and take it and send it to the RP.

Itsatravesty · 02/09/2018 17:53

Interestingly my ex, the NRP applied for a mandatory reconsideration due to an apparent sudden 80% drop in income (self employed). This was 2 months after CMS took over my case and awarded a decent amount for the first time in 8 years, not a large amount by any means but decent enough imo. Anyhow they immediately reduced the payments and had me paying back the 'overpayments' . Unfortunately for them they did not follow the correct procedures, namely informing me in due time. I took them to tribunal and the judge found in my favour, NRP is now paying me back underpayments on top of original amount awarded . The whole process took 12 months and I have to say the judges letter made me laugh, I could hear him rasing his eyebrow at ex's poverty pleas.
So yes it's a faff and a stress that none of us should really have to endure but it was worth it it my case. I'd still like to see CM treated the same as tax, payable to government, passed onto RP. Non payers accrue debt to government.

PipeTheFuckDown · 02/09/2018 18:06

@Radar - CMS payments are not taken into account when claiming benefits. I know this because I’ve literally just come off Benefits to go to University. My ExDP does pay child support for our 2, DWP fully aware, unless I was being paid £800 a month or more in child support it does not affect my benefits.

Itsatravesty · 02/09/2018 18:09

Cms payments are taken into consideration when claiming benefits. So you may not be eligible for benefits if in receipt of cms. If the cms stops and your income decreases, you may then become eligible for benefits.

So if you don't get cms from nrp you may well be eligible to claim benefits that you otherwise wern't entitled too to prop up your single parent income.

That is not true at all. It used to be the case but since non payment is so common and benefit claims take so long to process it was leaving children in poverty. You can't exactly not feed your children for 6 weeks whilst your benefit claim is being processed, hence why it is no longer the case and hasn't been for many years .

PipeTheFuckDown · 02/09/2018 18:14

@platypus he is a total shit bag. Ghosted me when I was pregnant with our DD. He’s been sleeping on his sisters sofa for 3 years. Has never met DD. Pays no board etc at his sisters, meanwhile she rinses her ExH in child support (he pays double CMS rage, half of weekly childcare, has their child 40% of the time) whilst helping her brother dodge a measles £27 a week payment to our child?! His Mum funds him. Holidays abroad twice a year. Designer clothes. Angry Meanwhile I kill myself working and studying and he just lazes about Hmm

LangCleg · 02/09/2018 18:16

Tax credits don't take child or spousal maintenance payments into account. Universal Credit doesn't take child maintenance into account but I'm pretty sure it does take spousal maintenance payments into account (if anyone actually gets them). Councils are likely to take child maintenance payments into account for any council tax support scheme they operate.

Going self-employed to pretend they earn less than they do is a common one, isn't it?

Radardetector · 02/09/2018 18:37

@PipeTheFuckDown

Some people are paid £800 or more in cms. So they would not be eligible for additional support from benefits unless the cms stopped.

Benefits are there to support people who can not support themselves/children. If your not getting cms and are not eligible for benefits then your income is obviously enough on its own. Therefore why should the tax payer pay your csa payment when nrp stops. That's the point I'm trying to make.

PipeTheFuckDown · 02/09/2018 19:02

The only benefit CMS affects is housing benefit and the amount differs per region. I get £250 for my elder 2, my toddlers father pays 0. I’ve gone from benefits to living off student loans so I’m hardly living the high life Hmm

The point is - if it were a choice of NRP paying or Government paying and chasing the NRP with very heavy handed punishments, there would not be anywhere near as many dickheads skipping payment.

bastardkitty · 02/09/2018 19:03

Reading with interest after a few years of relentless dicking around. I'm liking the sound of the tribunal. I've been trying to avoid escalating things but not really sure why. Some of the people at CMS definitely understand what's going on, but they seem to have no teeth. Currently on a nil payment from ex who is spunking money as if he's terminally ill and has won the lottery.

patsy11 · 04/09/2018 00:44

@radardetector

Single mum's AKA resident parents don't want financial support they want non-resident parents to step up and take financial responsibility for their children. The current system is completely ineffective at dealing with non-residemt parents who want to avoid paying. How much the mother earns or has, should not absolve the NRP from his financial responsibilities. This however, I would assume, is more of an issue for RPs at the lower end of the wage spectrum where £30 a week can make a hugh difference. To then have to fight for it and wait 6 months or more just puts a further burden on RPs already shouldering most if not ALL responsibility for their children. The current system does not work. Getting the government to make cm payments and taking off NRP like a tax (The government is great at collecting taxes and fining people who don't pay) - sounds good to me if they cannot come up with a system that works - What would you suggest?

OP posts:
bastardkitty · 04/09/2018 10:27

I completely agree patsy and others who said that the money should be paid and treated as a debt to the state by the NRP. NRPs run rings round RPs and CMS and there are simply no consequences for lying and refusal to support children.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page