Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

SW Shakedowns on Single Fathers?

Options
13»

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Henry9
    Registered Users Posts: 418 ✭✭Henry9


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    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 ;)
    Yeah thats bullsh1t and they know it.
    Chancing their arm.
    After the solicitor go and see your TD.


  • Options
    #63
    Karmaa
    Registered Users Posts: 123 ✭✭Karmaa


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    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.


    A friend of mine was not claiming maintenance from her ex partner for their child and the SW told her if she doesn't they will!


  • Options
    #64
    anyinput
    Registered Users Posts: 19 ✭anyinput


    Karmaa wrote: »
    A friend of mine was not claiming maintenance from her ex partner for their child and the SW told her if she doesn't they will!

    I don't think they can...my mother was getting a certain amount off her ex husband for so long and the SW found out he was making more than what he should have been paying and they told her to peruse him for it and she said no due to the agreement the two of them had regarding access he had for the kids(took them most weekends and a couple of weeks during the summer) and that if she or they went for more that would or could ruin that and so they backed off


  • Options
    #65
    tropo1981
    Registered Users Posts: 5 ✭tropo1981


    If you are on SW and paying maintenance then apply for "Return of contributions" under the miscellaneous provisions act sec 37 and they will top you back up as it’s your minimum right as a citizen and a human right. Simply send the maintenance court order to SW and state that no third party be part of the correspondence or any information within be shared with a third party.
    Whats CRAZY is, you get topped up and the mother gets deducted! It’s a messed up system. This anomaly should not happen, however it’s not the only anomaly within legislation.


  • Options
    #66
    PucaMama
    Registered Users Posts: 3,129 ✭✭✭PucaMama


    tropo1981 wrote: »
    If you are on SW and paying maintenance then apply for "Return of contributions" under the miscellaneous provisions act sec 37 and they will top you back up as it’s your minimum right as a citizen and a human right. Simply send the maintenance court order to SW and state that no third party be part of the correspondence or any information within be shared with a third party.
    Whats CRAZY is, you get topped up and the mother gets deducted! It’s a messed up system. This anomaly should not happen, however it’s not the only anomaly within legislation.

    Why is it ok to dock the money of the main care giver in the childs life? If you pay maintenance thats just it. Can I apply for money to "top up" my payment after paying bills? I Dont think so.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Rev Hellfire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭Rev Hellfire


    PucaMama wrote: »
    If you pay maintenance thats just it.
    Perhaps it's because they have the temerity to believe that even fathers are entitled to a basic standard of living.


  • Options
    #68
    tropo1981
    Registered Users Posts: 5 ✭tropo1981


    PucaMama wrote: »
    Why is it ok to dock the money of the main care giver in the childs life? If you pay maintenance thats just it. Can I apply for money to "top up" my payment after paying bills? I Dont think so.

    Seriously, In theory you are not docking money from anyone. It's the system that allows this to go round and round. If you are a mother and apply for SW then you have to show how you try to get maintenance from another party (Father) then it is deducted from rent allowance or so, the father as a result is out of pocket so as a basic human right to be entitled to receive the basic payment to survive cannot be taken away or the SW are liable for any upset.
    Please don't attack me, I have done a lot of research.


  • Options
    #69
    patsypantaloni
    Registered Users Posts: 234 ✭✭patsypantaloni


    Not saying anything about the rights or wrongs of it, but just wondering if this type of thing might be covered by the "liable relative scheme" in which case they might be entitled to look for financial statements etc?
    More info here http://www.welfare.ie/en/Pages/Liability-to-Maintain-Family.aspx


  • Options
    #70
    tropo1981
    Registered Users Posts: 5 ✭tropo1981


    PucaMama wrote: »
    Why is it ok to dock the money of the main care giver in the childs life? If you pay maintenance thats just it. Can I apply for money to "top up" my payment after paying bills? I Dont think so.
    Why would you pay a bill anyway? I don't. It's unlawful.


  • Options
    #71
    tropo1981
    Registered Users Posts: 5 ✭tropo1981


    patsypantaloni wrote: »
    Not saying anything about the rights or wrongs of it, but just wondering if this type of thing might be covered by the "liable relative scheme" in which case they might be entitled to look for financial statements etc?
    More info here http://www.welfare.ie/en/Pages/Liability-to-Maintain-Family.aspx
    LOL what a load of ******* A Judge will ask for a statement of means an so on. NO mention of such in 1976 act, it's actually called attachment of earnings so it does not apply to PPL on SW as SW is not an earning, its a right. Judges should go bald from scratching their heads.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    PucaMama
    Registered Users Posts: 3,129 ✭✭✭PucaMama


    tropo1981 wrote: »
    Why would you pay a bill anyway? I don't. It's unlawful.

    Whats unlawful about paying your bills


  • Options
    #73
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    PucaMama wrote: »
    Why is it ok to dock the money of the main care giver in the childs life? If you pay maintenance thats just it. Can I apply for money to "top up" my payment after paying bills? I Dont think so.
    I think one of the main points raised in this thread is that this strategy is not designed for the benefit of the child, or either parent, but for the benefit of the DSW. It's only non-custodial parents associated with custodial ones in receipt of SW assistance that are targeted and clearly only those where an increase would ultimately end up being clawed back by the DSW. The child or mother will never see any increase.

    The same goes for any docking of the 'main care giver' - it's for the benefit/profit of the DSW.
    patsypantaloni wrote: »
    Not saying anything about the rights or wrongs of it, but just wondering if this type of thing might be covered by the "liable relative scheme" in which case they might be entitled to look for financial statements etc?
    Yes, it does appear to be connected to this scheme, as was pointed out earlier in this thread.

    However, if you read through both the literature supplied by the DSW and the act that empowers them, there's a lot of confusion on what they can and cannot do, even before one considers the question of how their actions conflict with existing court orders (or if they even can).


  • Options
    #74
    tropo1981
    Registered Users Posts: 5 ✭tropo1981


    PucaMama wrote: »
    Whats unlawful about paying your bills
    It's a legal obligation to pay a bill not a lawful obligation. Anyway a bill has to be signed in blue ink, so I have not ever got one in the first place. Ok, so no more drifting from the actual thread.
    In respect to maintenance, a single mother on SW has to show that she is actively seeking maintenance, I would suggest that any father on SW supply a copy of their payments to the SW officer the mother deals with and that is enough for them to stop annoying the mother.


  • Options
    #75
    anyinput
    Registered Users Posts: 19 ✭anyinput


    tropo1981 wrote: »
    It's a legal obligation to pay a bill not a lawful obligation. Anyway a bill has to be signed in blue ink, so I have not ever got one in the first place. Ok, so no more drifting from the actual thread.
    In respect to maintenance, a single mother on SW has to show that she is actively seeking maintenance, I would suggest that any father on SW supply a copy of their payments to the SW officer the mother deals with and that is enough for them to stop annoying the mother.

    Who says they are annoying the mother?

    They are after the father to foot the bill for the payments they give the mother,other than that the mother has not interaction or say in the matter. They have stated they are not acting on behalf of the mother and she has no involvement,its essentially between the father and the social welfare


  • Options
    #76
    PucaMama
    Registered Users Posts: 3,129 ✭✭✭PucaMama


    tropo1981 wrote: »
    It's a legal obligation to pay a bill not a lawful obligation. Anyway a bill has to be signed in blue ink, so I have not ever got one in the first place. Ok, so no more drifting from the actual thread.
    In respect to maintenance, a single mother on SW has to show that she is actively seeking maintenance, I would suggest that any father on SW supply a copy of their payments to the SW officer the mother deals with and that is enough for them to stop annoying the mother.

    :confused::confused::confused:


  • Options
    #77
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    tropo1981 wrote: »
    In respect to maintenance, a single mother on SW has to show that she is actively seeking maintenance, I would suggest that any father on SW supply a copy of their payments to the SW officer the mother deals with and that is enough for them to stop annoying the mother.
    It appears that the matter is a little bit more complex than that. As has been posted here, the DSW are claiming to be operating under the liable relative scheme, which does appear to allow them a more proactive role.

    How proactive is another matter and probably would require a legal professional to clarify this.


  • Options
    #78
    rovoagho
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,151 ✭✭✭rovoagho


    PucaMama wrote: »
    :confused::confused::confused:

    It's freeman nonsense, please don't start then off, they'll derail the thread.


  • Options
    #79
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    anyinput wrote: »
    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.
    Just an interesting corrolation on the figure they quoted you. According to the rules:
    "Maintenance is assessed as additional household income (see above) and maintenance payments up to €95.23 per week are assessed in full. The household income disregard (see above) applies to maintenance payments above this amount."

    It's interesting that the maintenance target that they're seeking is pretty much the same as the maximum amount of maintenance they can claw back when assessing rent allowance.


  • Options
    #80
    irishcoffee1
    Registered Users Posts: 7 ✭irishcoffee1


    Hi,

    Sorry in advance to cut in the middle (if I did), but my story is related here - They sent me a letter asking me to pay more money, then I called them up asking for the details and they told me to write a letter with my expenses so that they can re-assess my case. I wrote back to them detailing my expenditures which do not allow me in any way to increase the amount that they requested to pay to either my ex or to them. They sent me another letter, which I was hoping it to be re-assessed, turned out to be the exactly the same content of the previous letter. It says that if i don't increase the amount to 190 or so a week then they may take legal action against me. I'm like ''how am I supposed to pay the amount when i dont have the money!!!''

    Any advise on this would be greatly appreciated!

    Thanks!


  • Options
    #81
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Is this only child maintnance or does this also involve spousal maintnance? If only the former they'd have to take you to the Circuit court for €190 p.w. as the maximum a District court can award is €150 p.w.

    Personally that doesn't make much sense to me; engaging barristers and the extra court costs for an extra €40 p.w.

    Get advice from a solicitor ASAP is what I'd recommend.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    irishcoffee1
    Registered Users Posts: 7 ✭irishcoffee1


    Thanks! It says a one-parent family payment awarded to ex. Do you think they still have any legal authority to take legal actions against me?


  • Options
    #83
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    irishcoffee1 wrote: »
    Thanks! It says a one-parent family payment awarded to ex. Do you think they still have any legal authority to take legal actions against me?
    I can't say. As I mentioned above, what you're telling us doesn't really add up, so unless they're bluffing wildly, there appears to be some confusion about your case. Get advice from a solicitor ASAP is what I'd recommend.

    Edit: Just occurred to me that €190 p.w. would make more sense if it's two children as that €150 p.w. maximum in the Circuit Court is per child. Still, go see a solicitor.


  • Options
    #84
    irishcoffee1
    Registered Users Posts: 7 ✭irishcoffee1


    I see yeah it's two children that we have. Are you suggesting that I would be obliged to pay 190 pw?


  • Options
    #85
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    In theory, yes.

    Given this, if you can't afford it and you can convince a judge you can't afford it, then you won't be. If the SW is trying to use scare tactics to try to get you to pay more than a judge would likely rule, then my attitude is that you're better off going to court as you've probably nothing to lose (other than legal fees).

    I would note that €190 p.w. for two children is again 'coincidentally' around the magic €100 p.w. per child limit that the SW can claw back from payments they make to her - so your children will never actually see a penny of this money.

    Nonetheless, see a solicitor and discuss it with them. We're not lawyers here, so we genuinely cannot advise you competently on this matter.


  • Options
    #86
    _Kaiser_
    Registered Users Posts: 28,724 ✭✭✭✭_Kaiser_


    Sorry to dig up a slightly stale thread but I received one of these letters in the door today (apparently they got my details from Revenue) looking for me to pay €216 a month to them or to my son's mother (which they'll then deduct so either way he'll see none of it anyway)

    My son and his mother live at the other end of the country (we're not together) so I'm already out maintenance (agreed between ourselves at the start - not court ordered - but she's decared it to them and it's paid by bank transfer every month to her account), travel costs (~ €200 every month in diesel and tolls) plus accommodation when I'm down (another €100 a month for a B&B). But that's all fair enough.. I've no problem with any of that as he's my son after all.

    However considering I've already lost about €200 this month thanks to the changes in the Single Parent Tax Credit, things are already going to be harder without this as well.

    I've already called them and tore strips off two of them in the office this evening over this as I have no intention of furnishing them with all my details (I'm not claiming anything from the SW myself), nor am I prepared to hand over more money for them to piss away on shyte like Irish Water when my son is the one who'll ultimately lose out (and I'd get to see him even less as a result if I did)

    Personally I'm inclined to tell them to "sue me" and get a solicitor if it goes any further, but before I tear the manager of this scam apart tomorrow, I just wanted to check if any previous posters on this thread had any feedback or outcomes themselves in the last while. Is it still them chancing their arm, or can they actually make good on their threats.

    Thanks for any feedback...


  • Options
    #87
    padma
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,874 ✭✭✭padma


    Tell them any more paper sent to you will be used as recycling paper to wipe ass. Losing the single parent tax credit is an awful pain and I've felt the revenue dip their hands in to my low wages deeper this past month.

    My child lives the other side of the country and I carry the same bills, petrol, dinners, lunch B+B etc.... It might be worth your while to send them a letter stating you don't receive SW and if they feel that you should be paying more, you may feel that if you are brought to court you will be fighting to pay less due to the increased demands on your take home pay and the judge should look kindly upon your circumstances.


Advertisement