- Background to my Case
I separated from the Parent With Care (PWC) when I moved out of the family home on the 05th January 2004 after having secured my very first contractual role as a consultant in the Financial Service Industry.
There is no hand book explaining the “do’s and don’ts” when separating, especially when there are children involved. The PWC certainly struggled to come to terms with the split and didn’t make things easy. For my part, working away from the family home was hard, especially as I rarely got to see my children. However, my focus was ensuring that the children were provided for financially. This salvaged some of my guilt regarding the break-up, because to my mind I knew that if the children remained financially secure, it would bring with it stability.
Between January 2004 and June 2006, I continued to pay all the household bills which covered the weekly groceries, the mortgage, the utilities, T.V licence, council tax and telephone bill. However, in June 2006 the PWC stated that she needed money and requested that she receive half of the house. I was not keen to sell the property as I was concerned the impact this would have on the children moving home. I therefore made provision to provide the PWC with her equity share of the house so that she could access funds and offered her a peppercorn rent so that she could stay in the property.
In August 2006, the PWC demanded a full and final separation agreement. The PWC engaged the services of a family lawyer and a draft minute of agreement was proposed. The terms of this agreement were: –
- 50/50 equity split although I would pay all costs relating to the sale of the property
- The PWC would sign over all her joint and existing debt to me
- To pay the PWC’s legal fees in respect of the settlement agreement
- To pay the utilities and the mortgage until the PWC vacated the property which was agreed to be within three months of the Minute being signed (January 2007).
The PWC remained in the property until June 2007 and gave a week’s notice when she moved out. During this extended stay, I continued to pay the mortgage in full and until the property sold in August 2007. From the sale, the PWC received a further £40,000 which I anticipated would be used as a deposit on a new property for the children.
- Every Case is Different
Part of the settlement agreement was that I was to get half the cash value of the white goods. Although I was on a good rate of pay through my contracts, I was still paying off the joint debt and effectively financing two households, which left me very little cash to play with. It was for that reason I must confess I was a little peeved when she took with her all the house contents. She even sold my racing bike (keeping the proceeds) and binned anything which was in the house that belonged to me. However, I do consider myself fortunate because I was earning sufficient money to weather these losses.
For many Non-Resident Parents (NRP’s) who are being pursued for maintenance by the CSA, that is rarely the case. The CSA have geared themselves up as an administrative function that applies a one size fits all solution and herein lay the source of the Agency’s first practical failing.
It is madness to assume that each separation can be viewed and processed by applying a single set of rigid rules. However, for the Agency to process the volume of cases, this is exactly what they do and in so doing, they fail to recognise that each separation will have different arrangements, different circumstances and different financial considerations.
A PWC is more likely to engage the Agency if they know their maintenance payments to be less than the statutory liability award. (i.e. If a NRP parent earns £200 or more per week, the CSA calculates the amount of maintenance they should pay as a percentage of their net weekly income. For one child, this is 15%, for two children this is 20% and for three or more children it is 25%). Those who are on low income, are more likely to offer less than the statutory amount, particularly if the NRP is having to find new accommodation and the paraphernalia that accompanies a separation. There is also the complex issues of joint finances and liabilities which are always cumbersome to re-arrange in the short term. To add to the mix, the NRP could be subject to financial complications such as zero hour contracts, receiving irregular overtime payments or working flexi-hours which make the calculation of the liability order more complex.
Then there is the principle driver that was discussed in my second blog (see purpose for change), where the government is aiming to reduce the burden of paying benefits to PWC by applying a pound for pound benefit cut in every pound paid to the PWC in child maintenance.
My experience and research shows that those NRP’s whose ex-partners are claiming benefits are more likely to endure the harshest of earnings assessments with the Agency seeking to maximise the NRP’s earnings to maximise benefit relief. As discussed in the 2nd blog, this does not alleviate child poverty. Instead it makes life harder for the NRP whilst failing to improve the financial position of the Qualifying Child (QC}.
With regard the build up to my case, I freely admit I had been enjoying good financial times. However, I was brought down to earth when the Credit Card Crunch hit the Financial Services Industry in 2008. My contract was terminated in December 2008 and I was unable to get employment for seven months. In the end, I took a role at half my pre-crunch day rate, just to keep the wolves from the door. I had no savings due to my settlement with the PWC, I was still serving her debt and in July 2009 HMRC served a personal tax notice for £28,000 (which reflected the money I had taken out the business in 2007 to settle with the PWC) and a corporation tax notice for £32,000.
In late June 2009, the PWC contacted me to advise that she had declared herself bankrupt having applied for an Individual Voluntary Arrangement. The PWC also sought financial assistance from me to help her. Although not in a position to offer any financial help given my straitened financial circumstances (I was at that time five months behind on his mortgage and had credit card debt of £40,000 and maximised my overdraft limit of £37,500), I would have refused in any event given the fact that I had a clean break settlement in place.
I also have to go on record and say I was desperately disappointed that the £40,000 cash I had provided in the expectation that this would serve as a deposit for a home for the children had been spent. That both shocked and disappointed me.
- Here on in
I think it is important to give you a potted background to the Agency and the circumstances behind my case, so that you can get an understanding of the starting point to my dispute.
I have subsequently spent in excess of £50,000 fighting the Agency and it is accepted that the Agency acted in deliberate bad faith, but still my case remains unresolved.
During my dispute, I have covered every facet of the ACT and my learnings will help you deal with an Agency who have no intentions to engage with you as an individual or to express empathy with regard your personal circumstances. I hope you will find my trials, tribulations and experiences invaluable when you come into contact with the Agency and I hope that you continue to read my postings
4th Blog : – Initial engagement with CMEC. What to look out for?
– What questions to ask?
– What evidence to present?
– What action to take?
Taking on Child Support 