SW Shakedowns on Single Fathers?

The Corinthian

I've noticed recently a number of posts seeking advice on what appears to be a shakedown tactic that has been employed by the SW recently. Some posts from people having experienced it can be found here, here and here.

What appears to be happening is a single father is contacted directly by the SW who then demand either their financial details or that he increase maintenance payments to the mother, who is on SW. The father need not be on SW themselves for this to happen.

I don't know if a threat of legal action is explicitly made, but by the reaction of those who receive such demands, it does appear to give that impression.

Thing is, my understanding (I'm not a lawyer, nor have I had first hand experience of this) is that the SW has absolutely no power to do this - demand financial information (certainly not if the recipient is not on social welfare), nor to bring a single father to court for increased maintenance (AFAIK only the mother may) - yet this is what seems to be implied in these demands, according to accounts.

To me, having by now come across numerous accounts of this occurring, it seems to be some sort of shakedown; an attempt to scare men into paying more with the implied threat of legal action. To add insult onto injury, as child maintenance is deducted from the mother's rent allowance, in appears that the purpose of such a tactic is so that the SW saves money, while the child never sees a penny of it.

I'm not posting this thread to start a discussion in terms of men's rights (it may be related, but not here), but because I'm a bit shocked that something that seems to be happening a lot and appears so dodgy does not appear to be public knowledge (has it even been reported in the media?).

I'm also posting to see what the truth of it actually is; is it a very cynical and unethical shakedown, as it appears or is there something else to it. If this is the former, it should be made public knowledge, so posting about it here is a start.

Experiences, legal and administrative knowledge on this welcome.

Ms. Pingui

I have heard of this happening too. It's as you say, a money saving tactic for social welfare. It benefits nobody else; not the father, not the mother and certainly not the child.

srsly78

Nobody benefits, except for the greedy taxpayer!

Ms. Pingui

srsly78 wrote: »

Nobody benefits, except for the greedy taxpayer!

Maybe, but I don't think the average taxpayer is going to see a cent of any savings made.

Sleepy

I'd imagine they realise that most parents in receipt of single parents allowance don't declare any maintenance from the child's other parent and are trying to crack down on this.

Maguined

Sleepy wrote: »

I'd imagine they realise that most parents in receipt of single parents allowance don't declare any maintenance from the child's other parent and are trying to crack down on this.

It's one thing to make them declare how much is being paid, it's completey different to pressure people into paying more than they curently are if that is what has been agreed amongst the parents.

Sleepy

If the state is picking up the difference between what they should be paying and what they actually are, why shouldn't they have the right to request non-custodial parents to increase their maintenance? I'm not in any way suggesting that they should be bankrupting people but I honestly believe an awful lot of non-custodial parents pay nothing near half the costs of raising a child.

Maybe it's just the cases I know the details of from my personal life but very few maintenance agreements would seem to even cover half the childcare bill, nevermind the other expenses of raising a child.

Maguined

Sleepy wrote: »

If the state is picking up the difference between what they should be paying and what they actually are, why shouldn't they have the right to request non-custodial parents to increase their maintenance? I'm not in any way suggesting that they should be bankrupting people but I honestly believe an awful lot of non-custodial parents pay nothing near half the costs of raising a child.

Maybe it's just the cases I know the details of from my personal life but very few maintenance agreements would seem to even cover half the childcare bill, nevermind the other expenses of raising a child.

Because it is not the case that there is a difference between what should be paid and what is paid, what is happening is that mother and father have already agreed to what should be paid, what should is actually being paid but SW are pressuring people into paying more than has been agreed.

It's the equivalent of SW demanding to know how much rent you are paying your landlord and then pressuring you into paying more. You have already reached an agreement with the landlord and SW have no right to interfere with that agreement by demanding you pay more.

anyinput

ID like to point this out as I did in my thread...the letter they sent had figures with what I was paying on rent,maintenance,food,living expenses and such and where completely wrong and in accurate

They letter said they got this info from my last tax claim...it's worrying that they have no clue what people are actually paying and scaring some people into paying more who shouldn't have too with all these incorrect figures

Sleepy

I'm no expert but as far as I can see, In a situation where a parent is receiving lone parents allowance, the amount paid in maintenance by the other parent has no real impact on them so (unless they're fraudulently not declaring the maintenance), there's no onus on them to ensure that the non-custodial parent is paying appropriate levels of child maintenance as the state pays the difference.

IMO, child maintenance should be fairly straightforward: take half the costs of rearing the child, divide it by 7 and multiply it by the number of days that the non-custodial parent doesn't have the child overnight for. It only really gets complicated where the parents can afford vastly different lifestyles or where the non-custodial parent contributes towards the cost of raising the child in another manner (e.g. signing over their share of equity in the family home, paying education costs etc.).

The Corinthian

srsly78 wrote: »

Nobody benefits, except for the greedy taxpayer!

I hardly think that extorting money from a subset of those same taxpayers is a particularly ethical solution to the problem though.

Maguined wrote: »

It's one thing to make them declare how much is being paid

It's already declared; it's called a court order. If no court order exists they already put pressure on the custodial parent seeking welfare to get one.

What gets me about this whole thing is that from what I've seen it looks strongly like little more than a confidence scam by the SW, although not being a lawyer and not having had any direct experience of this myself, I cannot say definitively.

A part of me doesn't want to accept that this is a scam though, as if it were it would be one on a national level and potentially even illegal - and it seems incredulous that a government body would actually do something like this. Or that the media has not picked up on it.

So much of this thread is to see what the truth of the matter is, and if it really is a shakedown, make sure as many people know as possible.

clairefontaine

Sleepy wrote: »

If the state is picking up the difference between what they should be paying and what they actually are, why shouldn't they have the right to request non-custodial parents to increase their maintenance? I'm not in any way suggesting that they should be bankrupting people but I honestly believe an awful lot of non-custodial parents pay nothing near half the costs of raising a child.

Maybe it's just the cases I know the details of from my personal life but very few maintenance agreements would seem to even cover half the childcare bill, nevermind the other expenses of raising a child.

I would think its because the social welfare system subsidises to an extent (to what extent I don't know) the maintenance of a child. Given the system is under so much stress, it seems they do have a right philosophically to be relieved of the subsidy by the parents. And yes your right about maintenance payments being very thin in some cases.

The Corinthian

Sleepy wrote: »

If the state is picking up the difference between what they should be paying and what they actually are, why shouldn't they have the right to request non-custodial parents to increase their maintenance?

Because it's not their job to do so?

Because we have the courts already who look at both the costs and earnings of both parents, what they need and what they can afford and rule accordingly?

Mr. CooL ICE

This is weird. A colleague of mine got a phone call this morning about exactly the same thing. They demanded an extra €400 per month, which is insane. He had a rough breakup with his wife so he assumed that it was her stirring trouble, but after contacting her, she denied all knowledge of it.

Sleepy

Are the courts sharing this data with the DoSW though? From past professional experience with the Courts Service, I'd be very surprised if they didn't consider it a breach of data protection (which, tbh, I think it would be).

And secondly, not all maintenance is agreed in court. There are lots of families out there with informal arrangements, particularly where seeking to defraud the state by having the custodial parent claiming to be receiving no maintenance from the non-custodial.

The Corinthian

Sleepy wrote: »

Are the courts sharing this data with the DoSW though? From past professional experience with the Courts Service, I'd be very surprised if they didn't consider it a breach of data protection (which, tbh, I think it would be).

They don't need the courts to share anything - they can and do demand the information from the custodial parent.

And secondly, not all maintenance is agreed in court. There are lots of families out there with informal arrangements, particularly where seeking to defraud the state by having the custodial parent claiming to be receiving no maintenance from the non-custodial.

And this is an ethical way to find out?

Seriously, you're dragging the thread off topic at this stage.

Sleepy

The Corinthian wrote: »

They don't need the courts to share anything - they can and do demand the information from the custodial parent.

And again, isn't it in the custodial parent's interest to lie about the level of maintenance agreed?

And this is an ethical way to find out?

Seriously, you're dragging the thread off topic at this stage.

It sounds like they're not going about it in any sensible fashion but I'd applaud any efforts on the part of the DoSW to clamp down on welfare fraud. Happy to bow out of the thread if you don't like the input however.

clairefontaine

Sleepy wrote: »

And again, isn't it in the custodial parent's interest to lie about the level of maintenance agreed?


It sounds like they're not going about it in any sensible fashion but I'd applaud any efforts on the part of the DoSW to clamp down on welfare fraud.

What you might see up the road is the DSW seeking a court order themselves. Or having the single mother required to waive the in camera rule in the application procedure. I think the was and is talk of loosening the in camera rule, this no doubt will be one of the bi products of whatever legislation comes through. I would not be surprised either if you see the DSW requiring a court order from the single parent to qualify, or a situation where the DSW can pursue a court order directly from the non custodial parent.

The Corinthian

Sleepy wrote: »

And again, isn't it in the custodial parent's interest to lie about the level of maintenance agreed?

One last time; the SW can and do demand a copy of the court order from custodial parents who apply for payments.

It sounds like they're not going about it in any sensible fashion but I'd applaud any efforts on the part of the DoSW to clamp down on welfare fraud.

I take it that you applaud the practice of rendition to clamp down on terrorism too? Presuming this is about welfare fraud and not just welfare savings.

Happy to bow out of the thread if you don't like the input however.

I'm not asking you to bow out, but the topic here is not welfare fraud or some other tangent. It's is this happening, is it legitimate and if not to inform people of it.

Gandhi

It is actually a smart ploy, as it portrays a reduced SW payment as not targeting "the most vulnerable in our society", but instead as targeting the "stereotypical deadbeat dad". This will surely make the mainstream media at some point, and it will be very interesting to see what spin is put on it.

ToxicPaddy

While I do agree with the idea of targeting those who don't pay their fair share, I think their tactics are a bit over the top especially when just handing out random demands.

Surely all of these demands can be challenged in court and questions asked about their methods?

IHeartShoes

Really don't think its a shakedown. Its a legitimate action, I think. Its about the state having to pay when a parent abdicates their financial responsibility for their child. If figures are incorrect, then the former partner can simply correct the DSP and they go away. If the DSP are unreasonable in their demands given the parent's other outgoings or new family, then they can appeal this quoting new figures or information and it is likely to go away. If the parent has a court order then there isn't a whole lot DSP can do as the Court is the higher authority and the Dept can't override them. That simply needs pointing out to the DSP at the time.

As previously stated, some parents are not paying maintenance and DSP are well within their rights to go after them, I think. Some are not paying enough and should pay more. DSP are entitled to ask the question. How can this aspect be off topic when it explains the reasons for the demands from maintenance recovery?

anyinput

IHeartShoes wrote: »

Really don't think its a shakedown. Its a legitimate action, I think. Its about the state having to pay when a parent abdicates their financial responsibility for their child. If figures are incorrect, then the former partner can simply correct the DSP and they go away. If the DSP are unreasonable in their demands given the parent's other outgoings or new family, then they can appeal this quoting new figures or information and it is likely to go away. If the parent has a court order then there isn't a whole lot DSP can do as the Court is the higher authority and the Dept can't override them. That simply needs pointing out to the DSP at the time.

As previously stated, some parents are not paying maintenance and DSP are well within their rights to go after them, I think. Some are not paying enough and should pay more. DSP are entitled to ask the question. How can this aspect be off topic when it explains the reasons for the demands from maintenance recovery?

I'd like to point out after further investigation my ex asked the dsp to re evaluate her loan parents as they where under the impression that she was making more than she was,when this was brought to there attention they automatically jump onto me to pay more without any checking of if they were in the wrong or if any agreement had been made

I just feel sorry for the dad who get scared and pay more when they cant afford it or if relations aren't great and talk isn't great they will automatically think its the ex partners after more and would put an even bigger strain on them and their relationship for their child

shopaholic01

I think might be a tactic to discover if mothers are lying about the level of maintenance they receive as opposed to penalising fathers.

Asking fathers to give details of rental and living expenses might also help DSW discover when couples are co-habiting, yet the mother still claims lone parent allowance. Fraud does occur in relation to these payments, it is only right that is investigated.

The Corinthian

shopaholic01 wrote: »

I think might be a tactic to discover if mothers are lying about the level of maintenance they receive as opposed to penalising fathers.

Why not use water-boarding techniques then if the legality of how you uncover social welfare fraud is not a big issue? Probably more efficient.

At this stage, it's probably safe to say that this is something that is occurring and with greater frequency than we would have thought.

However, the big question is whether the DSW may legitimately use such powers. If they are, it would be good to know here. If not, then they are misrepresenting themselves, in some cases for financial gain - and using the same scare tactics with both the guilty and the innocent. So even if it was a 'tactic' to uncover social welfare fraud (and I have my doubts on this), they would, ironically, be using fraud to do so.

That's the bottom line, not some 'the end justifies the means' rationalization.

So do they have a right to make such demands?

anyinput

The Corinthian wrote: »

Why not use water-boarding techniques then if the legality of how you uncover social welfare fraud is not a big issue? Probably more efficient.

At this stage, it's probably safe to say that this is something that is occurring and with greater frequency than we would have thought.

However, the big question is whether the DSW may legitimately use such powers. If they are, it would be good to know here. If not, then they are misrepresenting themselves, in some cases for financial gain - and using the same scare tactics with both the guilty and the innocent. So even if it was a 'tactic' to uncover social welfare fraud (and I have my doubts on this), they would, ironically, be using fraud to do so.

That's the bottom line, not some 'the end justifies the means' rationalization.

So do they have a right to make such demands?

It would be great if someone who had a background in this area was able to post some input or at least contact them and see where and how the dsp stand on the basis of this,as the letter did say they MAY use legal action...so they may be hiding behind they MAY part like other establishments who use similar terms to cover themselves...like broadband providers using UP to a certain speed...just a thought I had

The Corinthian

anyinput wrote: »

It would be great if someone who had a background in this area was able to post some input or at least contact them and see where and how the dsp stand on the basis of this

A large part of the reason I started this thread is to see if anyone could shed light on if this is the case or not.

I can't see them coming here to make any confession if they're not acting legitimately, TBH, although if they do have actual powers they may do so. As I've suggested to people who find themselves being contacted with such demands, replying with a letter, sent via registered mail, seeking clarification as to under what powers they are making these demands has most often resulted in never hearing back from them again, which is why I suspect that they may not be acting entirely legally.

Maguined

shopaholic01 wrote: »

I think might be a tactic to discover if mothers are lying about the level of maintenance they receive as opposed to penalising fathers.

Asking fathers to give details of rental and living expenses might also help DSW discover when couples are co-habiting, yet the mother still claims lone parent allowance. Fraud does occur in relation to these payments, it is only right that is investigated.

Pressuring a parent to increase whatever payment they are currently making is taking it far past a simple investigation into fraud and makes it direct interference.

Neyite

They already do insist on financial information from non SW recipients though. When I was unemployed, they wanted information relating to my male housemate. Probably they didn't believe that we were not a couple. But, since he was a nice guy, he did write a letter to confirm what rent he paid, that we were not a couple. But they were deeply suspicious.

But, take the same example and it was a co-habitation situation, your boyfriend/girlfriend would get fully means tested in your SW assessment, and they do have to provide financial information. Yet it doesnt work the other way - you cant transfer your tax credits or get jointly assessed, they have no say as a next of kin, and no inheritance rights (well, that may have changed if you are together 5 years.)

While I do think that some department should be chasing parents who fail to contribute, I dont think it should be SW, as there is a conflict of interest there in that they probably would have no interest in chasing a parent when the other one is not a welfare recipient, but may be worse off in a minimum wage job. Its not about making people responsible for their children. Its about massaging the figures, trying to save themselves money and trying to put a good PR spin on it - like Jobbridge. :rolleyes:

The Corinthian

Neyite wrote: »

They already do insist on financial information from non SW recipients though.

I've never heard of a non-SW recipient being approached directly; interesting. Do they have the power to do this and even threaten the non-SW recipient with legal action?

And that's before one considers those cases where they're demanding, seemingly arbitrary, increases in payments. Can they do that? There appears to be no clear answer to this because I've heard of no call for clarification ever being answered - they just seem to drop the matter.

Its not about making people responsible for their children. Its about massaging the figures, trying to save themselves money and trying to put a good PR spin on it - like Jobbridge. :rolleyes:

Call me cynical, but that would be my guess. Of course, if they're overstepping their remit or legal powers, it's a PR spin that could blow up in their face.

Neyite

The Corinthian wrote: »

I've never heard of a non-SW recipient being approached directly; interesting. Do they have the power to do this and even threaten the non-SW recipient with legal action?

Oh no, sorry I wasn't clear. They asked me for the full names of who I lived with. I had one male flatmate so they got suspicious, and asked me to get a letter from him stating his rent, and that he was a flatmate. Though, that was about 7 or 8 years ago so who knows what bullying tactics they have added to their repertoire by now.

I found them very hostile to deal with. And considering I was in my thirties the first time I applied to them for welfare, I thought it would be clear I wasn't a SW careerist, or intending to become one. They were a lot more polite and respectful to other, shall we say, more experienced customers in the queue. While I didnt expect them to fawn all over me, basic courtesy, clear answers to my questions, and not losing my paperwork several times over 3 months would have been nice.