Maintenance Contribution Assessment

Rhubar

Hi, I was hoping that someone might be able to help by sharing their experience!

Myself and my husband separated last year and we have three children. I am claiming one parent family payment (has just recently come through) and my ex is paying me 150 euro per week maintenance. I get €20 per week deducted from my payment as means because of the maintenance.

My ex and I are both in agreement about the maintenance and access etc so we have no formal agreement. Ex earns about €500 per week depending on overtime etc and pays €150 per week rent.

Yesterday he got a letter from the social welfare asking him to either pay an extra €127 per week directly to me (and the OPFP would be adjusted) or pay it directly to social welfare.

Obviously he can't afford to pay this much extra. Has anyone else received a letter like this and what has the outcome been? Are they just chancing their arm and will they bring him to court?

We have been trying to be amicable so as to not cause stress for the children but this is causing a lot of friction.

Thanks very much in advance!

January

Moved from Parenting

Rhubar

January wrote: »

Moved from Parenting

The reason I put it in parenting was because, after doing a search, there was a similar thread moved to parenting last year. There was no resolution to the issue so I decided to post my own thread.

LegacyUser

Is you ex paying maintenance to you or just in respect of the children? This has happened to me before, they child contribution from the government to your one family payment is approx. 29 euro per child so you ex is cover the cost to the government. The other thing is if you have it done through a legal document which has been decided and signed off by the court then they cannot force any additional payment, he just needs to forward a copy of it to Social Welfare showing it has been decided by the court. Maybe they are now aware he is already paying money to you, sometimes they are just automated letters. My ex didn't have to pay any additional money once he produced the agreed court payments, hope that helps

mrsbyrne

You and he need to try and make an appointment to talk to a SW inspector.
SW do not expect your ex to live in penury but they do expect you and his children to be his financial priority.
Does your ex have the kids overnight every week,?

myshirt

I think somewhere along the lines someone has the sums wrong.

If he is clearing 500 a week, there would be no way he'd have to fork out 280. I think it is more likely that the social want him to formalise the situation, in other words, pay 127 in total (either to you or them) and that as a follow up they would do their sums right and deduct the correct amount from you.

The Corinthian

From what I can gather the policy is that they're seeking to get maintenance payments increased to the maximum that they can reclaim from what they pay themselves. They don't seem to really care if it can be afforded or that the maintenance will never actually benefit anyone other than themselves.

Legally, they do appear to have some bizarrely draconian powers in this regard, that even appear to bypass normal legal process, but how this all works appears to be very much obfuscated and confused (purposely so, I suspect).

They may simply be chancing their arms, demanding an extra €127 per week, as an opening salvo and willing to negotiate - after all, how would they know what he's earning? All they probably know is the maximum that they can reclaim from what they pay you.

I would recommend that your husband speak to a solicitor about this, in particular one who's already dealt with such cases.

mrsbyrne

The Corinthian wrote: »

From what I can gather the policy is that they're seeking to get maintenance payments increased to the maximum that they can reclaim from what they pay themselves. They don't seem to really care if it can be afforded or that the maintenance will never actually benefit anyone other than themselves.

Legally, they do appear to have some bizarrely draconian powers in this regard, that even appear to bypass normal legal process, but how this all works appears to be very much obfuscated and confused (purposely so, I suspect).

They may simply be chancing their arms, demanding an extra €127 per week, as an opening salvo and willing to negotiate - after all, how would they know what he's earning? All they probably know is the maximum that they can reclaim from what they pay you.

I would recommend that your husband speak to a solicitor about this, in particular one who's already dealt with such cases.

As it is the taxpayer who ultimately foots the bill for SW payments then it is only right that SW, on behalf of the taxpayer, ensure that the people responsible for the children, in this case their parents, are financially contributing all they possibly can.
There is no need for a solicitor. Let me assure you that no laws are being broken. SW have every right to know the salary of a father whose children are being supported in part by the state.
When it comes to SW the burden of proof is on the father to prove that €150 per week is all he can afford, SW do not have to prove anything.
This can all be sorted out by arranging to meet with the SW Inspector or Deciding Officer concerned.

The Corinthian

mrsbyrne wrote: »

As it is the taxpayer who ultimately foots the bill for SW payments then it is only right that SW, on behalf of the taxpayer, ensure that the people responsible for the children, in this case their parents, are financially contributing all they possibly can.

If they were doing that I'd agree, but they're not.

This policy appears only to recoup money paid out by SW, to begin with, it's not actually designed to ensure that anyone is actually financially responsible (if it does, it's simply an altruistic by-product of the policy).

And secondly it only seeks that the non-custodial parent is financially responsible for their children, there is absolutely no effort whatsoever to ensure that the custodial parent make any attempt to financially contribute whatsoever.

There is no need for a solicitor. Let me assure you that no laws are being broken. SW have every right to know the salary of a father whose children are being supported in part by the state.

Just because the SW have the power to know the salary of a custodial parent, doesn't mean that the custodial parent should not seek legal advice on what is clearly an adversarial approach to cost recouping. It would be foolish and irresponsible to naively go in and presume they're going to be 'fair' and that you should not at the very least have received legal advice on your rights.

mrsbyrne

The Corinthian wrote: »

If they were doing that I'd agree, but they're not.

This policy appears only to recoup money paid out by SW, to begin with, it's not actually designed to ensure that anyone is actually financially responsible (if it does, it's simply an altruistic by-product of the policy).

And secondly it only seeks that the non-custodial parent is financially responsible for their children, there is absolutely no effort whatsoever to ensure that the custodial parent make any attempt to financially contribute whatsoever.

Just because the SW have the power to know the salary of a custodial parent, doesn't mean that the custodial parent should not seek legal advice on what is clearly an adversarial approach to cost recouping. It would be foolish and irresponsible to naively go in and presume they're going to be 'fair' and that you should not at the very least have received legal advice on your rights.

The whole premise of OPFP is that the custodial parent is not expected to provide financially for his/her child/children.
That is in the legislation that covers OPFP.
As far as I know it is against the forum rules to discuss here whether this is "fair or unfair" or whatever.
Custodial parents are encouraged to work by a favourable means test and the possibility to get two SW payments, but no, there is no compunction on them find work.
Legal advice can be costly and in my experience iscompletely unecessary and counterproductive in these cases.

ShowMeTheCash

mrsbyrne wrote: »

As it is the taxpayer who ultimately foots the bill for SW payments then it is only right that SW, on behalf of the taxpayer, ensure that the people responsible for the children, in this case their parents, are financially contributing all they possibly can.
There is no need for a solicitor. Let me assure you that no laws are being broken. SW have every right to know the salary of a father whose children are being supported in part by the state.
When it comes to SW the burden of proof is on the father to prove that €150 per week is all he can afford, SW do not have to prove anything.
This can all be sorted out by arranging to meet with the SW Inspector or Deciding Officer concerned.

As a tax payer??
Get off your high horse!
You do not foot the bill for anything, you or I are not that important!
You pay into a system thats it... In the event you lose your job at least you know that there is a system that will support you until you get back on your feet.
The idea that you seem to think you are supporting SW is laughable...

Now that aside, someone already stated SW payments per child are 29 euro. SW cannot ask from him more than they support your kids by.

If he is already paying 150 it exceeds the amount they would be paying you. Sounds like a mistake. Call the SW officer and get it cleared it up.

The Corinthian

mrsbyrne wrote: »

The whole premise of OPFP is that the custodial parent is not expected to provide financially for his/her child/children.

You argued "the people responsible for the children, in this case their parents" - which if one is not expected to do so, means that your statement was false.

Legal advice can be costly and in my experience iscompletely unecessary and counterproductive in these cases.

And advising against legal advice is legal advice in itself, which is also against forum rules.

ShowMeTheCash

From the website

Q3. Will the payment rates be affected by the changes to the scheme?
A. No. The personal rate will continue to be €188.00 per week – with a further €29.80 for each additional qualified child.

So you should get a personal reate of 188 then an additional 29.80

So you said you have 3 kids so I assume you will be in recepit of in around 277 (Excluding anything else have have going on.)

You say he is paying 150 and now they want another 127 which would be 277 esentailly you would not be in recepit of anything!

If you are sperated then at every least you are entitled to your personal rate of 188, the child rate is perhaps means tested based on support.

Also I am assuming you are not working I could be wrong, I think there is a 110 euro payment for working single mothers also.

mrsbyrne

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

As a tax payer??
Get off your high horse!
You do not foot the bill for anything, you or I are not that important!
You pay into a system thats it... In the event you lose your job at least you know that there is a system that will support you until you get back on your feet.
The idea that you seem to think you are supporting SW is laughable...

Now that aside, someone already stated SW payments per child are 29 euro. SW cannot ask from him more than they support your kids by.

If he is already paying 150 it exceeds the amount they would be paying you. Sounds like a mistake. Call the SW officer and get it cleared it up.

Where the bloody hell did i say "as a tax payer"!?
Qoute me!
How dare you tell me to get off my high horse! Im not on any bloody high horse unlike you! Learn to bloody well read!
if you think a parent cannot be asked for more than €29.80 per week then you know absolutely nothing about SW legislation and i dont even know what your point, if any, is!

mrsbyrne

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

From the website

Q3. Will the payment rates be affected by the changes to the scheme?
A. No. The personal rate will continue to be €188.00 per week – with a further €29.80 for each additional qualified child.

Do you even know the changes to the scheme you are reffering to here?

So you should get a personal reate of 188 then an additional 29.80

On what grounds are you basing this, have you meanstested this lady?

So you said you have 3 kids so I assume you will be in recepit of in around 277 (Excluding anything else have have going on.)

You say he is paying 150 and now they want another 127 which would be 277 esentailly you would not be in recepit of anything!
Once again you appear to have looked at this ladies meanstest, did you access it under the FOI Act? Are you acting on her behalf?



If you are sperated then at every least you are entitled to your personal rate of 188, the child rate is perhaps means tested based on support.

Same question as above

Also I am assuming you are not working I could be wrong, I think there is a 110 euro payment for working single mothers also.
Theres no such thing in SW as a single mother. What do you mean a €110 payment ?!? Link please?[

B]

mrsbyrne

The Corinthian wrote: »

You argued "the people responsible for the children, in this case their parents" - which if one is not expected to do so, means that your statement was false.
If the father of the children in this case was not employed then it is unlikely he would be required to pay any maintenance at all as the law says his income cannot drop below the SWA rate (€186 in his case if he is living alone).
But he is employed and you will agree im sure that his obliation is to ensure that he provides for his children as far as he can.
If the mother was working she would be means tested as well.

mp22

Closed.