[Solved] child maintenance service

Im not sure what you mean by her losin gmoney if you pay more, theres no deductions from CMS unless they have to deduct from your earnings

I'm a little unclear on this too. The only time you would be charged 20% is if (as Twiston says) you refused to pay voluntarily and they collected the money from you. Otherwise, it's all very similar to CSA.

At the moment i voluntary pay direct debit to a csa bank account . Not my ex wifes and the csa then pay her. As i understand in future to use this service we will be charged - 20% increase on the payer and receiver will receive 4% . Less than she does now. Csa dont stop money from my salary ive always payed what they decide to them

At the moment i voluntary pay direct debit to a csa bank account . Not my ex wifes and the csa then pay her. As i understand in future to use this service we will be charged - 20% increase on the payer and receiver will receive 4% . Less than she does now. Csa dont stop money from my salary ive always payed what they decide to them

For almost all cases that transition from the old CSA to the new CMS - it is basically like starting anew - this is why you have the option to "leave" the CSA and form a family-based agreement (which is far better than getting involved with the CMS).

Under the old CSA rules, one parent could "decide" to recieve/make payments under the collect and pay (which levies the 20% cost you are talking about) for no reason.

Under the new CMS rules - this option is no longer available, meaning no longer can one parent make the other pay via collection and incur the extra 20% cost - "without good reason" (history of significant missed payments or a threat to not pay). The *default* CMS "service" is "direct pay" - where NRP pays the RP, and the CMS do not get involved (or even check if payments have been made).

In general, the government agency wishes to make parents who were "adult enough" to make a child, be adult enough to sort out financial arrangements between themselves. I think this is a hugely positive move (for the agency and tax payers). As soon as a NRP misses a payment or "messes around" the RP will have reason to ask CMS to use "collect and pay" and levy the extra 20%.

So, as said you'll be able to direct pay.

In my opinion though a family based arrangement is NOT superior to CMS input, Id recommend anyone going through acrimony to apply themselves and if you can and are willing to pay more then do, but find your baseline figure.

The reason for this (and its extreme to illustrate), is say you're self employed and have a £10,000 job that you give £2000 to your ex until you have another job, the day you give that money over the ex can apply to the CMS and you are liable from THAT day. ie the £2000 is irrelevant. this happened to me on a much lesser scale circa £450 that became null and void. If the ex chooses to withdraw her application I can NOW prove I have been paying the required amount, but my standing order as evidenced by bank statements before were of no interest to the CMS.

Hi thank you for your reply. Im not self employed so pay is fixed and I pay what the CSA tell me to. It will be interesting when this ends- by all means - great if you can sort out between the two of you - but if the receiving parent demands too much ? shall wait and see - ive contacted the CSA a couple of days ago and because ive never missed a payment and always paid what they said im bottom of the list . interesting times ahead - shall post what happens.

I'm the other way around in that my ex pays me maintenance through the CSA, and it's being transferred to the CMS. I opted for direct pay simply because there was a calculation done for me, and any missed payments are then enforceable, but it does keep it on a much more official basis. From my perspective, the family based arrangement are a complete waste of time - surely anyone who can come to an arrangement wouldn't be using the CMS in the first place.