[Solved] First Tier Tribunal

I haven't been to a tribunal for child maintenance for over 15 years, so it may have changed, but certainly then, the purpose of the tribunal was to make a decision on a variation and they took arguments from my side as the resident parent with care. My ex, the NRP, didn't turn up, but I assume they would have looked at her arguments should she have attended.

There is some information here:
https://www.gov.uk/courts-tribunals/first-tier-tribunal-social-security-and-child-support

Thank you for the quick response.

I am the NRP and the RPC has appealed around diversion of income but with no evidence (from the bundle the CMS have forwarded, and they state it in their own summary.)

I guess from the text in my original message, I am waiting to hear that they will have an oral hearing, and if they do, I will be given an opportunity to submit evidence/statements and attend to defend myself? Do you get much advance notice of the hearing?

I will take a look at the link you posted, thank you.

As I said, mine was about 15 years ago, in the days of CSA, but it was a face to face hearing - I'd submitted documents (I was the one who was submitting the variation against my ex) and I went along to back up my case. Because it was so blatantly apparent that she was doing everything possible to avoid paying maintenance, I didn't need to say anything further (especially when she didn't attend) and they made a ruling there and then. I seem to recall I had at least 2 or 3 weeks notice.

Yes, sorry, I had seen that. I suspect the procedure is still the same or similar.

The thing is, I am not avoiding paying it. My ex just thinks I have more money than I do. I would just like my opportunity to explain why her assumption are incorrect and her argument is flawed. (I have already explained this in the Financial Investigations interview) It seems I will have an opportunity.

Thank you for replying again.

Yes you will have an opportunity to respond. You will be sent a bundle from HMCTS with the CMS summary, how they reached the calculation, what their view of the appeal is, etc. They will alsoinclude any evidence that the appelant has given to the CMS.

You will be then be able to submit evidence to the HMCTS at any time prior to the hearing, up to approx two weeks before, so if you have evidence that the appeal is erroneous you will be able to submit. You can submit evidence via email to a processing mailbox, and you can also call a number to speak to an adviser on the phone.

Be prepared for a long delay due to covid. At the moment, oral hearings are taking place via video.

Thank you, that is reassuring.

I have most of the bundle, I think, from the CMS. From what I can tell, the appellant has no evidence. The CMS have said there is no concrete evidence to support the claims. However, good to know I will see any evidence she has submitted.

I do have information that the appeal is erroneous, so that is reassuring too. I saw on another thread that I should leave it as late as possible to submit any evidence (think they said 8 days and via recorded delivery) to avoid the appellant having too much forward notice.

Really good I can email and speak to someone. I was going to enlist NACSA's help as well.

Could it be kicked out at this point, if no evidence has been submitted? Is that what happens when they decide not to have an oral hearing?

I am expecting a delay. I have been through the court process already this year for a CAO.

Thanks for all the information, it is much appreciated.

Honestly, in your case with the CMS taking such a view I'm not sure what happens regarding the need for a hearing. They will want to hear any evidence, as they need to follow due process - this also helps you, otherwise the appellant can appeal the FTT decision.

In my case, the CMS described the case as "finely balanced" and "complex", so naturally it proceeded to oral hearing.

You can call HMCTS to make sure you have the full bundle of evidence and double check the status of the case. They have a central processing center at Bradford, but I don't know if this is common to all cases - they should have supplied a number when they gave you the CMS response.

In my case, CMS were not finding that there was evidence to show diversion, but they said this was why the hearing was going ahead, because essentially my ex was appealing against CMS and therefore the hearing was needed to qualify that.

In the end it didnt actually happen, but I guess in this situation, even though CMS are saying they do not see a case, the tribunal is what decides it.....

In my case, even when the tribunal had found in my favour, the ex tried to appeal it (I think it goes to head of DWP or something like that) and that slowed the process further - a few months if I recall - before my ex finally withdrew her appeal and the tribunal ruling stood.

Honestly, in your case with the CMS taking such a view I'm not sure what happens regarding the need for a hearing. They will want to hear any evidence, as they need to follow due process - this also helps you, otherwise the appellant can appeal the FTT decision.

In my case, the CMS described the case as "finely balanced" and "complex", so naturally it proceeded to oral hearing.

You can call HMCTS to make sure you have the full bundle of evidence and double check the status of the case. They have a central processing center at Bradford, but I don't know if this is common to all cases - they should have supplied a number when they gave you the CMS response.

Thank you. The only references in the 45 pages are to the CMS, not the court. Perhaps I will get that when they decide when the hearing is and issue the bundle then?

In my case, CMS were not finding that there was evidence to show diversion, but they said this was why the hearing was going ahead, because essentially my ex was appealing against CMS and therefore the hearing was needed to qualify that.

In the end it didnt actually happen, but I guess in this situation, even though CMS are saying they do not see a case, the tribunal is what decides it.....

Thanks. That would make sense. It sounds very similar to my case.