maintenance contribution assessment

anyinput

Hey guys,

Does anyone have input or advice on this subject?

My ex and I went to court to sort out access,maintenance and legal guardianship a while ago and had everything agreed in court.

The other day I recieved a letter with information about my rent,what I pay in maintenance among other things which were all inaccurate and this letter stated that they wanted me to increase my maintenance payments

I rangy ex who said she didn't do this and only asked the social welfare to review her payments and I believe that she didn't ask for more off me from them.She contacted them and they said . had to call them confirm everything was agreed in court but when I called them they said to send in the court agreement and they will review it.

That statement has me worried meaning they could review it and not agree with it,can that happen if it's already been agreed in place by the court?I can afford to pay more than I am which is amount that we both agreed on together

Any advice or someone's input has been in this situation would be appreciated

Big Bag of Chips

Moved to Parenting. This forum is more appropriate for your query, OP.

anyinput

Big Bag of Chips wrote: »

Moved to Parenting. This forum is more appropriate for your query, OP.

Thank you

The Corinthian

There appears to be a worrying trend by the SW to scare fathers into paying more maintenance with, not so subtle, threats of legal action in recent years. Before you think they're doing it for the child, think again; your maintenance gets deducted from any rent allowance your ex may be receiving - they're shaking the tree so they can save money.

From every incidence I've heard of to date, they appear to be chancing their arm, to a point that I'd question the legality of their actions, let alone ethics.

Some points:

• You're under no obligation to give them any information if you're not on SW yourself. And if they want a copy of the agreement, they can always ask your ex as she'll have a copy, after all.
• You are perfectly entitled to ask them where they got personal information about you - you may well be able to demand to know under the Freedom of Information act.
• They cannot force you to pay more; only your ex can seek a motion of variance through the courts. They have no power to do so.

A thread came up on some time ago; if you read it from post #11, you'll find that they folded pretty quickly once their bluff was challenged. Follow the same advice I gave there, is what I'd suggest.

Personally I believe that they're bluffing on the basis that many will panic and comply without asking questions. It's a pretty disgusting tactic; if so what they're doing certainly unethical and potentially even illegal.

anyinput

The Corinthian wrote: »

There appears to be a worrying trend by the SW to scare fathers into paying more maintenance with, not so subtle, threats of legal action in recent years. Before you think they're doing it for the child, think again; your maintenance gets deducted from any rent allowance your ex may be receiving - they're shaking the tree so they can save money.

From every incidence I've heard of to date, they appear to be chancing their arm, to a point that I'd question the legality of their actions, let alone ethics.

Some points:

• You're under no obligation to give them any information if you're not on SW yourself. And if they want a copy of the agreement, they can always ask your ex as she'll have a copy, after all.
• You are perfectly entitled to ask them where they got personal information about you - you may well be able to demand to know under the Freedom of Information act.
• They cannot force you to pay more; only your ex can seek a motion of variance through the courts. They have no power to do so.

A thread came up on some time ago; if you read it from post #11, you'll find that they folded pretty quickly once their bluff was challenged. Follow the same advice I gave there, is what I'd suggest.

Personally I believe that they're bluffing on the basis that many will panic and comply without asking questions. It's a pretty disgusting tactic; if so what they're doing certainly unethical and potentially even illegal.

Hi,

Thank you very much for you advice,I was just a bit worried.

They got my information from my most recent tax back that I did...strange thing all there figures were in correct from how much maintenance I pay to how much my rent it,all seemed like guess work.

My ex said she asked for a review of payments as they belive she is being paid more than she is and that she did not mention me at all and I do believe her.

I don't think they can superseed our court agreement so I'm a little more relaxed about it now

Thanks for your help

The Corinthian

I'd still send them a registered letter asking them under what powers are you obliged to give them information, point out that your ex will have a copy of the court agreement also and what their intentions are (and under what powers).

It'll cover you in the unlikely event there's more to this than we suspect, as the ball will be in their court to reply. You'll most likely get no reply (as they're most likely bluffing), but if you do, you'll be better informed and can bring their reply to a solicitor.

irishcoffee1

hi all,

I am on the same boat and recently got the same letter from SW. Based on the above, can I assume that they have no legal authority to charge me more maintenance fee? If no, can I just ignore the letter then? It is pretty disgusting that they bluff and make them pay more.

What actions should I take from here?

can anyone please advise?

many thanks,

The Corinthian

I suggest you follow the advice given to others in this and the linked-to thread. It does appear to be some sort of shakedown they're running, but I'd assume nothing.

And post back once it's resolved so that your experiences can help others in the future.

anyinput

Hi all

I sent my letter a few weeks back and am still waiting on a reply which I stated I wanted

Ill report back when I have more info

anyinput

Hi guy's

Update: I rang the office today and they confirmed they had my letter but it hasn't been processed due to a back log.

They lady I was speaking too confirmed that they would not interfere with a court order that has an agreed maintenance payment which has put my mind at ease

I can't say what they will do about situations without a court order but wish you guys all the best

irishcoffee1

@ The Corinthian - thanks for your input. My case is a little different from the original post but when we separated, we didn't go through legal case, i.e. no court case, nor legal separation and as such. So the amount of maintenance we agreed on is not official. What I've been doing is that I pay more $ than what my ex claims to the SW so that she has been able to avail of rent allowance. Based on your advise and if it is definitely legitimate, then I would be more inclined to just ignore and burn the letter. But I am thinking of the worst case scenario if any.

In the letter, it says ''if you do not do so, legal action may be taken against you.'' But if my ex is the only person who can legally do something, then I shouldn't bother even reading this.

What they said in the letter is to make me pay more $ but if I do so, then my ex's allowance will negatively be affected - so either way, they are trying to keep more $ in their pocket.

Any advise please?

The Corinthian

What I, a non-legal professional average Joe Bloggs, would do if I were you is send them a letter, via registered post, seeking clarification under what legislation or powers they are making these demands of you.

If past experience of simelar posts here is anything to go by here, that will likely be the end of it and you'll never hear from them again. If they do reply then you can bring the letter to a solicitor and see what your legal options are. If you just ignore it and it does turn out that there's something to it, they could end up bringing you to court and having ignored it will not reflect well on you.

In short, better safe than sorry; sending the letter may be a waste of time if it's just a shakedown, but if not it'll both cover your ass and get you more information. If they bring you to court without replying, it may play badly for them as a result.

As to this topic, I've actually started a thread on it in tGC forum, as it seems to be happening more and more:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=86500897#post86500897

lonestargirl

irishcoffee1 wrote: »

. What I've been doing is that I pay more $ than what my ex claims to the SW so that she has been able to avail of rent allowance.

So she has been fradulently claiming rent allowance and you've been complicit in this?

The Corinthian

lonestargirl wrote: »

So she has been fradulently claiming rent allowance and you've been complicit in this?

So that they have an informal arrangement automatically means she's been lying to the DSW and he's both aware and complicit in this?

lonestargirl

The Corinthian wrote: »

So that they have an informal arrangement automatically means she's been lying to the DSW and he's both aware and complicit in this?

Did you read the section of his post I quoted? He admitted that he pays her more than she declares in order to allow her claim rent allowance. That's fraud.

The Corinthian

lonestargirl wrote: »

Did you read the section of his post I quoted? He admitted that he pays her more than she declares in order to allow her claim rent allowance. That's fraud.

Sorry, you're right. They should not be doing this, I agree.

I simply don't like how these bully-boy tactics appear to be used indiscriminately, against innocent and guilty alike, and how they appear to be illegitimate and maybe even illegal.

As to his complicity, I don't know what to say as it depends on whether it was the mother's or a mutual idea; if the former there's not much he can do apart from report her, which is a bit of a can of worms.

Actually, scratch the last paragraph. Unless he's paying her in cash, I can't think of any scenario where he's being passively complicit as any other form of payment would need his active cooperation to make it look like he's paying her less.

irishcoffee1

well, since I am separated I am not really being supportive to ex but the balance that I pay is for the kids special school fees which shouldn't fall under part of maintenance. The $ could be deemed as anything as one's personal allowance even if there's a legal agreement or not in place so she does qualify for that though.

Regardless of above, how can we find out what SW do is legitimate or not, apart from seeking a solicitor?

The Corinthian

irishcoffee1 wrote: »

well, since I am separated I am not really being supportive to ex but the balance that I pay is for the kids special school fees which shouldn't fall under part of maintenance.

I'm afraid that legally is does fall under part of maintenance. Maintenance is supposed to cover your share of all costs relating to your children; special school fees are still costs relating to your children, regardless of how you see or pay them.

Regardless of above, how can we find out what SW do is legitimate or not, apart from seeking a solicitor?

Send them a letter seeking clarification as I suggested a few posts above.

Big Bag of Chips

Look, the way it is, is the country is up the proverbial creek. They are looking for ways to cut expenditure. Instead of the state supporting children who have two parents capable of supporting them, they are trying to ascertain if the parents can afford more, so that they have to spend less.

That's it.

If you can afford to pay more, legally and morally you should. Otherwise you are, as others have said, guilty of fraud.

If you can't afford more then you have nothing to worry about because you can't give what you don't have.

All this talk of legal and legitimate etc is just distracting from the issue that in many many cases the state is compensating for parents who aren't standing up to their responsibilities. Parents who are, to the best of their genuine ability, have nothing to worry about. Parents who are not, will try to find the "loop holes"

The Corinthian

Big Bag of Chips wrote: »

If you can't afford more then you have nothing to worry about because you can't give what you don't have.

Because of course, if the DSW is getting to decide the amount, it's a fair and transparent system? Just as fair and transparent as whether they even have the right to do any of this? :rolleyes:

All this talk of legal and legitimate etc is just distracting from the issue that in many many cases the state is compensating for parents who aren't standing up to their responsibilities.

That's nonsense. If a government body is acting illegitimately or illegally, then it is certainly not something that's simply a distraction to be ignored.

The thing is that we already have a legal system that is supposed to compensate for parents who aren't standing up to their responsibilities in place. What you're suggesting, other than presuming that this is what they're doing, is that it's fine if any other government branch can take over this role if they feel like it, without any transparency, legal right to do so or oversight.

If the state wishes to 'compensate' for anything, it most do so transparently and legally - clearly the former is not the case, and the latter is in question.

Orion

The rights and wrongs of welfare and moral responsibilities of citizens to the state are better off in the Humanities forum. This thread is about what The Corinthian excellently describes as a SW shakedown in trying to vary official court orders. Can we stick to that topic please.

Big Bag of Chips

Sorry, I had replied to the OP originally, saying that if he has court ordered maintenance then he has nothing to worry about it.

The thread then changed direction with a poster claiming to have an informal agreement with his ex, where they are both claiming to the SW that he pays less than he actually does.

I agree with The Corinthian that the social welfare should have no powers to try to change or interfere with a court order.

But I also think in the cases where parents haven't made any formal agreement, that the social welfare SHOULD have the power to check out whether or not people are fraudulently in receipt of Social Welfare to which they are not entitled.

ETA The problem arises when the Social Welfare haven't the systems in place to check which is which, and instead prefer to send out a template letter to everyone.