SW Shakedowns on Single Fathers?

ardmacha

There is a general need for a legal framework to allow this, to assess whether the parents of a child are paying their full contribution. The State has an obligation to children, but the parents first and foremost are responsible and State should be allowed question whether parents are meeting their obligations before taking the money required from unrelated taxpayers.
It is clear from many posts here that "saving money" is derided and that taxpayers are expected to shell out without asking any questions at a time when there is a large deficit, when services. payments and salaries are being cut for other people.

The Corinthian

ardmacha wrote: »

It is clear from many posts here that "saving money" is derided and that taxpayers are expected to shell out without asking any questions at a time when there is a large deficit, when services. payments and salaries are being cut for other people.

Saving money is not derided, but saving money by using unethical or even illegal tactics should be.

Or would you like if a government department decided unilaterally that you should be ordered to pay more tax than your neighbour because your overheads have been judged to be lower and thus you can afford it?

srsly78

Doesn't that happen already? You get more tax credits for your kids so you pay less! Thus people with no kids effectively pay for yours. And that's just talking about tax credits, nevermind the children's allowance you get on top.

clairefontaine

It's legal because there is no law against it.

However there is no obligation from the father to respond either. He can just ignore it and there are no consequences In Ireland. That's not illegal either.

The Corinthian

srsly78 wrote: »

Doesn't that happen already? You get more tax credits for your kids so you pay less! Thus people with no kids effectively pay for yours. And that's just talking about tax credits, nevermind the children's allowance you get on top.

I probably didn't explain my point properly...

Imagine you're paying car tax, according to how it is normally assessed. Out of the blue, you get a letter from the department of transport demanding that you increase your car tax payments or legal action may be taken against you.

Your neighbour, who also has a car, has received no such letter. You've heard nothing about the department of transport gaining new powers to tax people and no one even seems to know if they legally can.

Think it's a good idea?

drake70

From the DSP website:

One Parent Family Payment

Liability to Maintain Family

srsly78

The Corinthian wrote: »

I probably didn't explain my point properly...

Imagine you're paying car tax, according to how it is normally assessed. Out of the blue, you get a letter from the department of transport demanding that you increase your car tax payments or legal action may be taken against you.

Your neighbour, who also has a car, has received no such letter. You've heard nothing about the department of transport gaining new powers to tax people and no one even seems to know if they legally can.

Think it's a good idea?

Possibly... Maybe it's just random cases selected by the computer, these then get assigned to an inspector. This happens with company audits somewhat. There are both random audits, and targeted audits. Surely you are not saying there should be no checks at all?

In recent years the much-rumoured "linking of the revenue and welfare databases" seems to have occurred. Most taxpayers would applaud such an effort, unless they happen to be the target of it.

The Corinthian

drake70 wrote: »

From the DSP website:

One Parent Family Payment

Liability to Maintain Family

Thanks. That appears to clarify things greatly.

Actually, not. Is there a lawyer in the house?

Smidge

If you go to CI and click on OPF and then click on and then click on the link under the "Rules" section and then on the "unmarried parents" it brings you to a VERY detailed section about "Guidelines for efforts condition for unmarried claimants".

Having read this it seems they have the right to do pretty much what has been outlined in this thread under Social Welfare Law.

anyinput

Hey everyone I have an update you will be interested in hearing,as you know I already have a court ordered agreement regarding maintenance before I received one of these letters and I was advised to send in a copy of the agreement which I did,today I received the following letter

"Dear Mr.anyinput

I refer to your liability towards the one parent family payment awarded to ms.ex-anyinput and wish to acknowledge receipt of your recent correspondence.

In every case where a one parent family payment is awarded,maintenance recovery unit seeks to trace the liable relative in order to ascertain whether s/he is in a financial position to pay maintenance either directly to the recipient of the one parent family payment or to contribute to the department, toward the cost of the one parent family payment.

While the department is indeed obliged to acknowledge the amount of maintenance as determined by the courts and to offset this amount against your overall liability,please note that the liability to maintain family provisions, contained in the social welfare consolidation act 2005, as amended, are completely separate to family law legislation.

In order to re-re-asses your liability the following details are necessary:
1.conformation of your rent/mortgage payments(a rent receipt or copy of your mortgage statement)
2.your last two current parsnips
3.any other details you wish to provide regarding your case

Any query which you may have in regard to this matter should be addressed to this office.Please submit the above details within 14 days. A pre-paid enclosed for your convenience.

Signed
Maintenance recovery unit"

Something I spotted about this letter is there is no mention if going to court over this now,just that they want me to submit those details.
I'm not going too and will ring them tomorrow but does anyone have anything to say about this and where I stand?

rovoagho

Would carrots do instead of parsnips do you think?

If I were in your position, as much as I'd like to tell them to go fork themselves, I think I simply wouldn't engage with them in any way.

This isn't advice, simply my own opinion/position.

donutheadhomer

The Corinthian wrote: »

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.

I was speaking to someone I know who works in SW and they said yes this is happening. They are trying to get more money in from the men and also to cut the welfare payments made to the mothers. He said they look for claims that say they are not receiving any maintenance payments or very low sums from the fathers: they then call the fathers and find out if they are actually making any payment at all and ask them to increase it. SW then return to the mother armed with the accurate maintenance rates and recover the overpayments if any or adjust the future rates based on the agreements made with the father if any

srsly78

So what happens if there is an agreement is already in place, but then one partner wins the lotto? Does that partner then have to give increased maintenance because of their increased means?

anyinput

Hi Guys,

I’ve been on and off the phone with the SW all day.

Basically because my ex is receiving lone parents they want me to make a "contribution" to them so as to save money, they say they are separate from family law and work under social welfare law.

They say i need to send in my details and they will review it and then tell me if I should be paying more and that they generally want fathers to pay 100 EUR a week, my current figure works out at 69.23 a week or 300 a month.

They say the court order doesn’t really reflect them as there could be a court order where an agreement of 5 EUR a week is ok but it’s not good as it still means that the mother is in receipt of lone parent.

I’m not going to send the details, iv made an appointment with a family law solicitor and will let this go to court if they peruse me for this, i find it irritating that we went through court made this agreement of what we were both happy to pay and then they jump in and say I must pay them now for her receiving the lone parents, if that’s the case the judge should have said pay at least 400 or the social welfare will come after you as this is what father have to pay

clairefontaine

What happens if you don't bother replying?

Nothing.

anyinput

clairefontaine wrote: »

What happens if you don't bother replying?

Nothing.

How do you know?

They menitoned that they will persue me in court if they feel i should pay the 100 and then it is up to the judge if i pay more. Frankly i dont see a judge usurping another judges agreement becuase the social welfare wont to save 31 quid a week...this puts strain on relationships among other things and does more bad than good and the only people that benifit are the SW as there is no increase in the one parent loan, they just want me to foot the bill

The Corinthian

Not posted back for a few days, because I wanted to read a few of the links on this that were posted, as well as the act that is cited as behind all this. Honestly, I'll have to admit that I've found it all pretty impenetrable (at least in the time that I'm willing to spend on it), so I've given up.

Nonetheless, it does appear that the DSW does have some powers to unilaterally chase people down at least for information, if not money. How far these go isn't entirely clear from what I've read as the act and the information on their site don't fully match to the eyes of a non-advocate like me.

As such, and IMHO, I'd probably still suggest that anyone in that situation follows the same advice as I gave earlier, as it is in your rights to do so, it should cover you legally and they do seem to drop matters more often than not when you do so.

However, if they persist, going to a family law solicitor would appear to be necessary.

anyinput wrote: »

Basically because my ex is receiving lone parents they want me to make a "contribution" to them so as to save money, they say they are separate from family law and work under social welfare law.

This is the most disturbing thing about all this.

Their aim is not to ensure that the child(ren) in question are adequately taken care of. It is not that it is a reasonable amount that can be afforded by the non-custodial parent, let alone needed by the custodial one. It's not even about uncovering social welfare fraud, according to what they told you.

It is that they save money by imposing an increase in maintenance - that money will ultimately go into the SW's coffers; the child will never see a cent.

The whole point of how maintenance is decided in court, is that it seeks to find the most reasonable solution that benefits the child(ren), that the non-custodial parent can afford. The DSW unfortunately is not in a position to do this because there is a clear conflict of interests.

Wait till they start chasing people to pay maintenance twoards their ex-boy/girlfriend's SW, that they happened to live with for five years.

rovoagho

I love the way they say they'll review and they'll let you know if you need to make a "contribution". As if they've ever gone back and said "nah, yer grand".

srsly78

What happens if due to SW budget cuts the governments contribution gets reduced? Is someone responsible for "picking up the slack"?

The Corinthian

srsly78 wrote: »

What happens if due to SW budget cuts the governments contribution gets reduced? Is someone responsible for "picking up the slack"?

What do you mean?

srsly78

Does the court factor in social welfare payments when it decides a figure? What happens if that social welfare payment gets reduced?

anyinput

srsly78 wrote: »

Does the court factor in social welfare payments when it decides a figure? What happens if that social welfare payment gets reduced?

Well if thats the case whats the point of going to court to get maintance put in place in the first if its going to be.." pay this for as long as the social welfare keep their payments at the same rate and if they reduce theirs then you up your payments or start paying them"...it should jsut be a variable based on the changing of the budget and where the moon and sun are in the sky at any given time.

(not having a go at you, just putting that point across)

The Corinthian

srsly78 wrote: »

Does the court factor in social welfare payments when it decides a figure? What happens if that social welfare payment gets reduced?

Same thing that happens whenever the circumstances of either changes; for example the non-custodial parent loses their job or the custodial parent wins the lotto. Either can apply for a motion of variance to change the order, taking the new circumstances into account.

It's one of the problems with the DSW approach - if an order has already been put in place, the circumstances may not have changed, they just want to squeeze a bit more out of them for their own gain. That's all they're interested in.

Henry9

I don't believe for a second that some minion in the DSW has the authority to over rule a court judgement.
The claim that 'we don't work under family law' is a nonsense, they can't choose whether or not to recognise the court's decision.

Interesting too that the angle is to try to stuff the father for more, not as thought by some to see if the mother is over claiming.
There's no fear they'll unilaterally start docking payments to single mothers, there'd be uproar,

Don't ignore it, get to a solicitor ASAP.

clairefontaine

Henry9 wrote: »

I don't believe for a second that some minion in the DSW has the authority to over rule a court judgement.
The claim that 'we don't work under family law' is a nonsense, they can't choose whether or not to recognise the court's decision.

Interesting too that the angle is to try to stuff the father for more, not as thought by some to see if the mother is over claiming.
There's no fear they'll unilaterally start docking payments to single mothers, there'd be uproar,

Don't ignore it, get to a solicitor ASAP.

Does anyone work under family law? Isn't a bit of a mirage of a court?

DSW is not going to take anyone to court because its too expensive to do so and the only person who can issue an order of discovery is a circuit court judge. If they were able to do this, the costs would be very high and legal aid applications would increase, which also costs the state more money.

Won't happen, unless they can leverage a change in legislation on how these things operate.

anyinput

Henry9 wrote: »

I don't believe for a second that some minion in the DSW has the authority to over rule a court judgement.
The claim that 'we don't work under family law' is a nonsense, they can't choose whether or not to recognise the court's decision,

Don't ignore it, get to a solicitor ASAP.

Funny you say that,one of the answers I got today was..."because it was a mediated agreement outside of court and the judge didn't actually tell me to pay it it doesn't really count"...word for word...so does that mean we have judges signatures on documents that are now null and void because the wanted to fly thorough mediocre cases quickly and just signed them with out providing orders about them?

The Corinthian

Henry9 wrote: »

I don't believe for a second that some minion in the DSW has the authority to over rule a court judgement.

I get the impression that their claim is that they are empowered to demand financial details from you, once you're named as a 'responsible' parent and on the basis of their analysis may initiate a motion of variance in court.

The claim that 'we don't work under family law' is a nonsense, they can't choose whether or not to recognise the court's decision.

Well, technically they're correct. On their site, link posted earlier in the thread, they cite a specific act as where their powers come from, which is under social welfare rather than family law.

clairefontaine wrote: »

DSW is not going to take anyone to court because its too expensive to do so and the only person who can issue an order of discovery is a circuit court judge.

They claim on their site that they can, although, again, the actual legislation is a bit difficult to follow and, to my untrained eyes, does not seem to entirely support their claims.

I would agree that the reality is that it is probably too expensive for them to follow up in most cases. I got rid of my TV years ago. When this happened, I naturally started getting letters from the TV licence people demanding I pay my licence. One evening, I got a knock on my door and it was a TV inspector. I told him I had no TV, or even radio, then when he asked to come in I cheerfully said 'no'. They never came back.

I suspect that the DSW is relying largely on scare tactics, and that it would end up costing them more to pursue the majority of cases than it what they'd make from them. Just an opinion, so don't rely on it as Gospel!

The Corinthian

anyinput wrote: »

Funny you say that,one of the answers I got today was..."because it was a mediated agreement outside of court and the judge didn't actually tell me to pay it it doesn't really count"...word for word...

Last time I checked a court order ultimately 'tells' your what and how you should pay, regardless of how it's arrived at.

Ask them to put what they said in writing. Bet they won't

Henry9

The fact they are exercising some power or other under SW law obviously doesn't render the family law judgement invalid. I know you know this, but it seems like the impression they are trying to give.

Essentially though it looks like they would have to take court action to get the judgement amended.
Too slow and expensive I think we all agree, plus in a sizeable number of cases the father's situation may have deteriorated, and may get his contribution reduced.

I think they are banking on the naivety of some. Plus they reckon there's enough people on the current climate are working and not declaring income, or are claiming something they're not entitled to.
A number if these will pay up on order to avoid any further investigation of their affairs.

clairefontaine

They can ask, but they can't order.