[Solved] Craig Bulman: The Child Maintenance Service is driving parents to suicide

This is shocking and I know I have received some harsh replies, when I have reported on my experiences with the CMS, but as I have responded, just look at most of the comments on the forum, we cannot all be wrong

I love the response from DWP, stock reply, how can this be allowed to continue, I myself have sat there in the past, seriously thinking of just ending it all, after the crazy sum that I was being TOLD to pay, based on an absurd calculation system, left we with not enough to pay bills and feed myself

The whole process is wrong and massively geared against the NRP, the false numbers the CMS give out, in unpaid sums, just allows them to continue to get away with this

Gross pay, I know the argument, heard it a million times, the percentage is less than the CSA, not when you earn over what is a basic wage, the double tax on your P11D submissions, you do not see this, how can I pay a percentage of something I do not see, bonus earned, overtime, God help you if you get a promotion

Please do not message me back and tell me to get over it, I will again repeat, me ex gets the child benefit, when we split and I had to stay paying the mortgage, she automatically got housing benefit, tax credits, not one of these had any impact in what I was told to pay, how can that be, and neither was my outgoings and the cost of having to live taken into account, simply told by the CMS, this is the figure we have, this is what you have to pay

I have spoken to so many NRP's, good people, who want to pay for their children, they see the ex with a two income family, nice house, new cars, holidays etc and the NRP is struggling to make ends meet, they are not bitter, they simply want to be able to live, all they did was split from their partner

Finally, the truth, is that not only the scandal of the collect and pay, but how an ex can exploit the shared care, to receive even more from the NRP, dare to question this and the CMS will simply always take the parent with cares position

I pray that no more NRP's have to take their lives to have this toxic department investigated

Heidi Allen was featured on the BBC's Victoria Derbyshire programme discussing the issues surrounding the Child Maintenance Service and recommendations for how these problems can be fixed. Also present are Head of Charity Gingerbread and Families need Fathers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_ZrMJx1HgQ

I found the first video a frustrating listen, they were dealing on one issue mainly, that of collect and pay and from my experience and reading issues on this forum, there are many more important problems that need addressing. The message from the interview seemed to be that CMS are just pulling figures out of the air to issue arrears demands and then applying collect and pay. I think that is too easy for CMS/DWP to bat away as not being true(in the main). I do not believe they do make up the figures, there is a need to understand the rules they are applying to come up with the figures, even though they are so obviously flawed. The problem is they are a rules and process driven organisation and they have no mechanism it seems to vary those rules even though the problem is glaringly obvious and needs correcting.

The post this week about a 50K arrears that has been issued after the father reverted to paying the RP directly rather than through CMS is one of those. They are applying the rule that the case was opened in 2013 and the father has not paid, as far as they can see. However, it is so clear that he has paid his dues, and can prove it, that someone at CMS must see that this should be investigated and overturned.

For me a big frustration is that the income of the Resident Parent is never taken into account. I know MWall has been posting about this. There will be a large number of resident parents having to look after their children and on the breadline, where every penny is needed and they rely on that contribution from the NRP. But there are other cases(such as mine) where the Resident Parent is earning a very good salary, has child benefit, a mortgage free house from the divorce settlement, no money worries at all, but continues to believe that the £600+ for one child is not enough and wants to continually pursue for more. I particularly feel for Fathers where they were essentially kicked out of their house, because the mother preferred someone else and they have to pick up the financial and other pieces, while they watch the RP having enough money to holiday, party, etc. If the incomes of the RP were taken into account in settlements it would be much fairer to the NRP who is often struggling.

I agree it is strange that there has never, to my knowledge been a documentary or substantial news item or paper article dealing with the many many fathers that are unfairly treated and hugely struggling through rules that are so clearly wrong, and lacking in the ability to be overturned by common sense.

There are stories to be told that should have MPs and senior people listening and doing something about it, but I am not sure that leading with CMS making figures up as they go along is the best way to have people listen.

As ever this is only my perception, it does not mean i am right and there are many examples out there that I have not been exposed to.

I can only agree with your comments, however, the point on the numbers put forward by the CMS, does have relevance, based on the many crazy calculations that they come up with and then change and change again, on what a NRP allegedly owes, how can we trust other numbers they put out, it is very basic, "let us throw as high a number as we can, clearly showing what no good child paying avoiding rats the NRP is" that perception, mistaken, is that this is the truth

My new partner, who has scrapped by with me, refuses to even discuss this anymore, as she gets too annoyed, so we have taken the decision that is will never be spoken about and I will deal with the CMS

Despite being my partner, she does have an impartial view, she loves my son, he has been on holiday with us, every other weekend, school holidays, but not just her, people I have discussed this with, simply cannot understand how the living costs for the NRP are not even a factor and the income of the parent with care, who maybe in a two income family, can have no effect on things such as benefits, or what the NRP has to pay

I have received amazing support and advice since joining this site, but social media is impossible to ignore, that genie is very much out of the bottle, so in my case, I will see that my ex has a brand new car, buying a big house, eating in the best restaurants and spa weekends, when she is telling my son, that I do not pay enough, [censored] father and she is living with nearly £8K pa from me, tax free and as far as HMRC and the benefits office are concerned, this is money that simply is not even taken into account (ps, don't think I earn anywhere near what the figure suggests, company car allowance, BIK etc)

Sorry for the rant, but this is simply immoral, myself and my partner now just smirk when on the few occasions we see the social media stuff, due to the abhorrent way the numbers are put together, I now no longer see my son, as the ex can get another £100 per month of me for change in shared care, try and challenge that one and see what side the CMS take

I just pray that no other NRP comes as close as I did to simply ending it all and gets the support that is out there, this is a serious issue and people are losing their lives, it a scandal of out times

If any NRP feels anywhere near ending it, get help, speak to someone, do not give in

I've been looking into this and as a partner of a separated father, I just feel hard done by and I'm not even the nrp!
We are constantly struggling to pay our mortgage/ bills etc we bought a flat with an extra room for the nights his daughter stays with us as it's recommended by cafcass and all involved that the child should have their own space to feel at home. That room still needs heating, airing etc to ensure it stays in a fit condition and doesn't dampen and have mould yet the extra cost of a flat with the extra room, the extra heating, the clothes we buy for her, all her bits in her room are not taken into consideration by CMS either! I'm not talking about luxury bits either, I'm talking about the essentials! Somehow nrp have to contribute towards the RP for those essential items and yet still have to afford those same items on their own for when the child is at their home.

In our situation.. The RP gets a new partner who moves into her council property, I'm sure, not claimed so she still receives single parent benefits, she has her income, her partner's income, benefits and reduced rent etc. She has since had a baby and is able to afford taking the whole year off for maternity and return to work part time (probably due to the top up she gets from my husband).

We have since had a baby and I've gone back to work in 4 months and having to work longer hours to cover childcare all because my husband's circumstances aren't taken into consideration when paying CMS. And if my husband works more hours to help me out, I feel like the extra income just goes to his ex and doesn't effectively help us as a family.
They effectively earn 2 person income + part of my husband's. We earn my income less part of my husband's.

I also find it confusing how the more you earn the more the child benefits. I understand that they do that because the logic is if the child was living with you, you may give a more luxury lifestyle but that's not necessarily true and seems as though when you are separated you are forced to give the money over regardless what you would have done. Personally I would love to be in a position to help our children when they are older to buy a home as it seems to be the biggest struggle at the moment, which means I would hold on to the extra income rather than splash it on luxuries.

At no point do I think nrp shouldn't contribute towards their child/ren, but I just think how it is calculated is not correct and that the force of paying more because you earn more is ridiculous.

I thought about what was suggested by Hrabbit by taking into consideration the RP income but I'm not sure that would work. In Hrabbit case it may work as the RP is a high earner, but in our situation I think it is likely to get the mother to work even less hours or basically not have a job to ensure the father pays more. It's so difficult to find a middle ground as one rule doesn't fit all hence why nrp are struggling with how CMS calculate things.
But they really do need to start taking on individual circumstances into consideration. If it wasn't for me and my husband being together, I'm sure he wouldn't have been able to afford a flat/CMS payments/car to travel to collect/drop off the child and all the things we have managed to get together!! (Just as I would struggle to afford a flat myself without his help - let alone all the other financial commitments nrp are forced upon)!!

It's terrifying reading some of the stories! I would love to make a difference and make a step in the correct direction but unsure how to even begin!

Nrp stay strong! You're doing well!

Wow.

It is hard reading everyone's messages and I've only just started paying CMS a few months ago.

I do agree that the original video doesnt quite get the right message across. It's not focused enough on the problems and issues at hand and just vaguely/loosely criticises the CMS which the DWP can respond to like they have.

In response to why is the system like this and why does nothing change. I'm sorry to say it again but the women's aid, women's rights, mumsnet, mothers rights groups are too large and influential in comparison to anything re the father/nrps and therefore their voice is louder and they have far more examples of single mums in poverty. No MP will want to get on the wrong side of them, can you imagine the headlines?

Whilst I agree that taking into consideration the RPs income is probably not workable as per the previous post, I also don't think taking Nrps incoming and outgoings will also work as it could then be artificially inflated/manipulated..

I think the system is flawed because there is no ideal way that will make everyone happy however whatever system comes into play there should be an element of fairness/balance.

I'm sure we could all agree to disagree on various suggestions. One thing we all agree on is that the current system is not fit for purpose.

@hrabbit Thanks for your input about my interview with Henry Widdas, reason we only covered a small range of issues is due to the time frame Anna Brees wanted to stick to, it was only supposed to be a 10-minute interview so we were very restricted in the time frame we had. 

The reason they do pluck figures out of thin air which they still do is to collect the outstanding £3.8 billion of child support arrears which accumulated under the 1993 and 2003 child maintenance schemes. However, 75% of the £3.8 billion was created by interim maintenance assessments inflated of up to 300% this is confirmed in Public Accounts Committee oral hearings in 2009, 2011 and 2012 I have put this information on Gavin Briggs's blog http://www.justice4gavinbriggs.com/p/fictitious-arrears-interim-maintenance.html  

So with that being said the CSA/CMS has still been attempting to collect the fictitious debt by distributing it around NRP/PP accounts this is backed up by a high volume of complaints to the NAO regarding unexplainable arrears. It is frustrating to see the media has still been publishing articles about the £3.8 billion being owed and Gingerbread and MP's bleating on about £2.6 billion of the arrears being written off when they are fully aware of the arrears mostly being fictitious. 

In the NAO Child Maintenance Client Funds Accounts 2016-17 it is stated (the Department is trying to recover arrears accumulated under the 1993 and 2003 Child Maintenance Schemes, it is not carrying out retrospective corrections. This means it cannot ensure that the £3.7 billion it is trying to recover is an accurate figure. The Department is also unable to write this debt off, which means that unless action is taken, the 1993 and 2003 Scheme Account will report an outstanding arrears balance long after all the cases have closed.) https://www.nao.org.uk/report/child-maintenance-client-funds-accounts/

Basically what the CSA and CMS has been doing for many years is distributing the arrears around Paying Parents accounts this explains why there are so many complaints about fictitious arrears they have been attempting to collect a mostly fictitious debt and to do this they abuse their powers in Court with section 33(4) Child Support Act 1991. When they take you to the Magistrates Court for a liability order that LO is going to be rubber-stamped even though the arrears are in dispute and you have evidence you do not owe the arrears. The Justices are precluded from questioning the calculations this is a breach of Article 6 Human Rights Act 1998 and ECHR your right to a fair trial is a statutory right and this is being breached by the CSA/CMS in their kangaroo court hearings.

We do have a lot of things going on in the background we now have MSM covering stories which will hopefully be released in the next month or so. We are also looking at going for a Declaration of Incompatibility sect 33(4) Child Support Act 1991 is not compatible with Article 6 Human Rights Act 1998

Posted by: @mwall66

I can only agree with your comments, however, the point on the numbers put forward by the CMS, does have relevance, based on the many crazy calculations that they come up with and then change and change again, on what a NRP allegedly owes, how can we trust other numbers they put out, it is very basic, "let us throw as high a number as we can, clearly showing what no good child paying avoiding rats the NRP is" that perception, mistaken, is that this is the truth

My new partner, who has scrapped by with me, refuses to even discuss this anymore, as she gets too annoyed, so we have taken the decision that is will never be spoken about and I will deal with the CMS

Despite being my partner, she does have an impartial view, she loves my son, he has been on holiday with us, every other weekend, school holidays, but not just her, people I have discussed this with, simply cannot understand how the living costs for the NRP are not even a factor and the income of the parent with care, who maybe in a two income family, can have no effect on things such as benefits, or what the NRP has to pay

I have received amazing support and advice since joining this site, but social media is impossible to ignore, that genie is very much out of the bottle, so in my case, I will see that my ex has a brand new car, buying a big house, eating in the best restaurants and spa weekends, when she is telling my son, that I do not pay enough, [censored] father and she is living with nearly £8K pa from me, tax free and as far as HMRC and the benefits office are concerned, this is money that simply is not even taken into account (ps, don't think I earn anywhere near what the figure suggests, company car allowance, BIK etc)

Sorry for the rant, but this is simply immoral, myself and my partner now just smirk when on the few occasions we see the social media stuff, due to the abhorrent way the numbers are put together, I now no longer see my son, as the ex can get another £100 per month of me for change in shared care, try and challenge that one and see what side the CMS take

I just pray that no other NRP comes as close as I did to simply ending it all and gets the support that is out there, this is a serious issue and people are losing their lives, it a scandal of out times

If any NRP feels anywhere near ending it, get help, speak to someone, do not give in

 Only way these issues will ever be resolved is if they make the payments a fixed amount based on the costs of raising a child. It still baffles me this isn't the case anyhow.

If they can set a figure an adult gets to live off (benefits) when unemployed, then they can also set a figure a child needs to be cared for. 

This would prevent resident parents preventing access for financial benefit. I'm sure we'd see more parents willing to agree to 50/50 care if there wasn't huge financial incentives for preventing it. 

It also stops punishing non-resident parents for earning more money. If you do overtime or get a promotion, you don't suddenly start feeding children caviar, as you alluded to. The reason people try to escape the system and bitterness ensues is due to the unfairness of the system in the first place. A large majority of parents don't wish to not pay for their kids. They just don't want to fund the other parents life and be in poverty for doing so.

Would resolve so many issues is this was implemented. 

It's mind boggling the RP can have either a good salary or low salary, benifits, high CMS to live a better life than the NRP. 

It just fuels NRP alienation. 

I get some NRP may earn good money whilst the RP is in poverty, and yes they should pay more to balance out. 

Some element of means testing is needed, and a maximum payment established. As an example my CMS is £800/month. That leaves me £1400 of which over half £800 is rent! RP has £400 mortgage, lives with her partner (salaries £3200+/month + tax credits + child benefits + the £800 CMS). Total net household income around £4200/month! 

How can a NRP compete or even live when this happens ? 

CMS also needs to be AFTER tax, NI etc. How can it be right to base payments on money you never see as it goes straight to HMRC? 

There definitely does need to be some account taken of income on both sides, though there is a problem if the PWC moves on and doesn't have his.her own income - should the new partner be expected to pay for a child that isn't theirs, especially if they might also be supporting their own children? 

With regards to the tax, CSA was originally based on net income, rather than gross - I'm not sure why they changed it (though when they did, they lowered the percentage), I'm guessing it may be down to people reducing their income after tax when they were able, so avoiding child maintenance.

The issue is that there is no one systen that covers all eventualities, and the courts simply cannot deal with every individual case.

What is needed, as well as a better solution, is greater penalties for fraudulent statements, including claiming child benefit when it should no longer be paid.

Sorry, only just seen the reply to mine from some time back......I am not on here much these days.

Everything everyone has said makes sense, including that it is impossible to come up with a solution where everyone is happy. 

Most workable may be as another said, fixed price maximum per child, which is payable by those that can afford it, graded down for those that cannot. But at a realistic level.

From my perspective, my head scratching with CMS continues. I cannot work out how they reassessed me mid last year and the calculations they used, but you can no longer get to speak to anyone to ask!

I sit here now, waiting for the result of my annual assessment not sure where they are going to find it(I have some complexities) plus with the knowledge my ex is now switched on to knowing she can claim on my assets too at 8% of their value.......

Crazy!!