[Solved] CMS Direct Pay Review

Interesting question. I can't see how they would do so on direct pay. The way I see it is that the direct pay involves a lot of trust, and it basically equivalent to the current family based arrangement. I'm not sure how they deal with an annual review - and I wonder whether CMS has even thought of this.

Personally, it seems to me to be a mistake that this whole area wasn't moved into the remit of Inland Revenue - I'm sure that would have streamlined the whole process.

I guess they could make contact every year and recalculate. When I had my calculation done they couldnt access my details via the IR so I swiftly provided pay statements so I could get it sorted.

My year is up around September I think so I guess I will find out then.

Regards,

Dave

Hi Dave

With Direct Pay they do review the case every year,i know this after having set up a case in March using Direct Pay,after everything is sorted they give you a date from when you are financially responsible for paying for your child/children then each year they look at it again unless you have a 25% difference in salary either way within that year (for which I think is very unfair)

Because the case is classed as 'open' with CMS and not a Private Agreement with the other parent then every year it will be reviewed and based on your P60 for which they will get the details from HMRC and recalculate the figure.

I am just glad CMS give us dads the chance to prove we are willing to pay as my ex was adamant she was going to screw me over and get them to charge me the extra 20% for them to collect it from me once the charges came in even though I had set up a standing order from day 1 for my little boy.

Hope this helps Dave

This 25% thing does strike me as very unfair (actually, it's unfair on the resident parent as well if there is an increase in takehome pay) - of course, if you have a reduction in pay of, say 15% - what's to stop you from paying a further 15% into pension to get the CMS to recalculate, and then reduce that payment to pension again once it's done? I'm not, for one moment, advocating trying to avoid paying fair maintenance - this would purely be a way to make an unfair system work more fairly.

I agree actd its not fair on either parent,i know though that if there is 25% either way then you do have to notify CMS about the change in salary (I wouldn't mind a 25% increase though)

There is probably ways that people could work round the Pension issue but its not one I would recommend as I am quite sure they would catch whoever out sooner or later.

What is bad though is that say someones wage goes down by 20% then CMS are still expecting you to pay the set amount that was worked out on your previous salary until your case is reviewed.

I admit though I have no issues with CMS and they were great when I opened up a case and had a lengthy conversation about the 25% and even the bloke who I was talking to said it was unfair,apparently he said it was to stop the people who go from job to job trying to get out of paying less maintenance.

The example you gave of the 20% drop was why I was suggesting the pension option, to try to get them to assess on your current income. I can understand the motives, but it seems a very blunt instrument to catch a minority, but ends up penalising a lot of people who are currently finding it very difficult - and it also penalises the parent with care if the increase is below 25% - and lets face it, if you moved jobs and got over a 25% increase in pay, it is actually encouraging you to put more into pension to keep below the 25%, so it's actually defeating the purpose.

Still, maybe it's something they'll tweak after a while, and hopefully it will work better than the CSA.