Why im taking DWP to court...
KarlJ
Firstly, as far as I know it is illegal for them to calculate my
earning based on what my partner earns, also I belive that they arnt
allowed to calculate any income that relevant children bring in.
However, they state...
"The income of any partner is not included in the calculation of net
income. We look at a partner's income only to determine whether they
can cover half the costs of their own children and to see if the
maintenance paid by the non-resident parent should be reduced to
safeguard their second family."
and also...
"A child's earnings are not included in the assessment."
and yet I also read that they take my Familly Tax Credit as part of my
income, as long as I am the main earner. They will totally ignore the
fact that part of that figure is derived from the fact that Dawn, my
G/F has an income, and also the fact that Andrew (one of the relevent
other children) is dissabled. They will do this no matter how much I
protest unless my and my partners earning are equal, in which case
they will then asses it as 50%.
This is plainly against the regulations that refuse them the right to
take into the calculations what my partner earns and treat it as my
income, it is also against the regulations that refuse them the right
to take in the amount my Disabled step son bring in to the house and
use that as income.
It is quite simply an infringment. It is something I aim to challenge
right to the top, as I feel almost everyone who lives with a partner,
or relevent other children will be being assed wrongly too.
I will need some obvious guidence in how to challenge this. For one
thing I would like to know of any court decisions that a judge has
refused DWP/CSA the rights to take a partners/childs income as part of
the income of the absent parent.
Please email anything you have to me.
postmaster -leave-this-bit-out- @altontowersmad.co.uk
Thanks in advance.
--------
Alton Towers Mad
http://www.altontowersmad.co.uk
Pazuzu
kjone...@aol.com (KarlJ) scrawled in message
<17d6a0cb.04012...@posting.google.com>:
>Right, this is why I am going to end up taking them to court.
<snip>
>I will need some obvious guidence in how to challenge this. For one
>thing I would like to know of any court decisions that a judge has
>refused DWP/CSA the rights to take a partners/childs income as part of
>the income of the absent parent.
You may have a tough time with that one (see below example judgement
in a case arguing that the collection/discemination of such
information was unjust & unlawful). I'll trawl Lawtel later and see
what turns up...
---
CA (Auld LJ, Pill LJ, Hale LJ) 14/12/99:
"HELD: ... Information about the income of any new family was used to
check whether or not the sum produced by the initial calculation would
reduce the absent parent's disposable income below his protected level
and to make adjustment if it did so. Regulation 12(1) Child Support
(Maintenance Assessment and Special Cases) Regulations ('MASC')
provided that the disposable income of an absent parent was the
aggregate of his income and any income of any member of his family."
...
(I don't know if the MASC has changed dramatically since then, but I
expect someone hereabouts will).
As an aside; Interesting point, same case... "'H' also stated that he
had no liability to maintain his ex-wife..." however, the judgement
went on to say... "The maintenance assessment could legally have
included an element for the PWC." Hmmmmm...Don't go telling the
bloodsuckers that one, they'll all want more nights out on the town!
x x
"KarlJ" <kjone...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:17d6a0cb.04012...@posting.google.com...
> Right, this is why I am going to end up taking them to court.
>
> Firstly, as far as I know it is illegal for them to calculate my
> earning based on what my partner earns, also I belive that they arnt
> allowed to calculate any income that relevant children bring in.
They can't treat partner's earnings as yours. Your net income and partners
net income are supposed to be treated seperately, with actual assessment
based on your income.
Kids income? That is taken into account above a certain level (means rich
people can't stick all their savings in kids names).
Certain benefits and tax credits are treated as the income of the highest
earner.
>
> However, they state...
>
> "The income of any partner is not included in the calculation of net
> income. We look at a partner's income only to determine whether they
> can cover half the costs of their own children and to see if the
> maintenance paid by the non-resident parent should be reduced to
> safeguard their second family."
>
> and also...
>
> "A child's earnings are not included in the assessment."
>
> and yet I also read that they take my Familly Tax Credit as part of my
> income, as long as I am the main earner.
They are correct in that.
If your partner was the highest earner, the tax credit would be treated as
her income.
They will totally ignore the
> fact that part of that figure is derived from the fact that Dawn, my
> G/F has an income, and also the fact that Andrew (one of the relevent
> other children) is dissabled.
That doesn't actually come into it. Family tax credit doesn't take account
of who earns what. Just the income of the family, and if any of you work
over a certain number of hours a week.
The child's own disability money isn't income. But stuff paid to the parents
can be, depending on what it is.
They will do this no matter how much I
> protest unless my and my partners earning are equal, in which case
> they will then asses it as 50%.
Because they are correct to do so.
Whether the law is right, thats a seperate issue. The CSA will have to stick
to the law as it is, not how they or you would like it to be, until it is
changed.
>
> This is plainly against the regulations that refuse them the right to
> take into the calculations what my partner earns and treat it as my
> income,
But its not what your partner earns - its tax credit paid to the family and
treated as the highest earner receiving it.
it is also against the regulations that refuse them the right
> to take in the amount my Disabled step son bring in to the house and
> use that as income.
If he has disability benefits in his own name, thats not income. But
benefits and things you claim as adults because the child is disabled, in
your own names - thats often income.
>
> It is quite simply an infringment. It is something I aim to challenge
> right to the top, as I feel almost everyone who lives with a partner,
> or relevent other children will be being assed wrongly too.
I wish you luck. But I think you'll have a fight on your hands as its the
child support act you'll be fighting, not the agency.
>
> I will need some obvious guidence in how to challenge this. For one
> thing I would like to know of any court decisions that a judge has
> refused DWP/CSA the rights to take a partners/childs income as part of
> the income of the absent parent.
I've never heard of a judge doing that because a judge doesn't get to decide
on what to include.
A judge can decide to grant a liability order, but cannot query the formula
used.
You might need a damn good lawyer. Or study a lot of law and background
yourself.
You'd have to take on the act, which means taking on the government. Get the
act changed, or get clarification of part of it, and you win.
It won't be easy.
Martin <><
KarlJ
> "KarlJ" <kjone...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:17d6a0cb.04012...@posting.google.com...
> > Right, this is why I am going to end up taking them to court.
> >
> > Firstly, as far as I know it is illegal for them to calculate my
> > earning based on what my partner earns, also I belive that they arnt
> > allowed to calculate any income that relevant children bring in.
>
>
> They can't treat partner's earnings as yours. Your net income and partners
> net income are supposed to be treated seperately, with actual assessment
> based on your income.
but they are treating my partners income as part of the calculation
due to the fact they are assesing 100% of the famillys (not mine) tax
credits as part of the assesment. They do this because it is paid to
me, as the highest earner, even though they admit, in black and white,
that it isnt based soely on what i earn.
Now forgive me if im wrong, but if they arew basing a calculation on
another calculation, and the later of these calculations happens to be
partly based on my partners earnings, then are they or are they not
infact basing there calculations on my partners earnings or not?
>
> Kids income? That is taken into account above a certain level (means rich
> people can't stick all their savings in kids names).
> Certain benefits and tax credits are treated as the income of the highest
> earner.
>
Re above, Andrew is Disabled, due to his disabilty we actually get a
boost to our Familly Tax credit, the CSA then use this boost as part
of the calculations.
Again, this isnt a calculation that is based soely on my earnings, but
one which is based partly upon my Step Son (and im not even married)
being disabled, for which the goverment body inland revenue appreciate
and fund.
>
> >
> > However, they state...
> >
> > "The income of any partner is not included in the calculation of net
> > income. We look at a partner's income only to determine whether they
> > can cover half the costs of their own children and to see if the
> > maintenance paid by the non-resident parent should be reduced to
> > safeguard their second family."
> >
> > and also...
> >
> > "A child's earnings are not included in the assessment."
> >
> > and yet I also read that they take my Familly Tax Credit as part of my
> > income, as long as I am the main earner.
>
> They are correct in that.
> If your partner was the highest earner, the tax credit would be treated as
> her income.
>
Where does it state this in law? I want to know! I do know that if my
partner and I earn the same amount then we are treated as equals and
so only 50% of it is taken into account, but where does it state 100%
must be taken into account if less than 100% but more than 50% of it
is due to the absent parent.
>
>
> They will totally ignore the
> > fact that part of that figure is derived from the fact that Dawn, my
> > G/F has an income, and also the fact that Andrew (one of the relevent
> > other children) is dissabled.
>
> That doesn't actually come into it. Family tax credit doesn't take account
> of who earns what. Just the income of the family, and if any of you work
> over a certain number of hours a week.
>
It does also take into account Andrew is disabled. Familly tax credit
obviously does take into account who earns what due to the fact they
send it to me and not Partner. they also ask you who earns what. Maybe
im not quite sure what your saying, because that is obviously wrong.
> The child's own disability money isn't income. But stuff paid to the parents
> can be, depending on what it is.
>
They (IR) pay us money to help look after Andrew, it isnt money that
is therefore intended to go to Ex.
>
> They will do this no matter how much I
> > protest unless my and my partners earning are equal, in which case
> > they will then asses it as 50%.
>
> Because they are correct to do so.
>
You a judge?
> Whether the law is right, thats a seperate issue. The CSA will have to stick
> to the law as it is, not how they or you would like it to be, until it is
> changed.
>
what law?
>
>
>
> >
> > This is plainly against the regulations that refuse them the right to
> > take into the calculations what my partner earns and treat it as my
> > income,
>
> But its not what your partner earns - its tax credit paid to the family and
> treated as the highest earner receiving it.
>
>
but what I recieve isnt based on my earnings, it is based partly on my
partners earnings, and so therefore should be treated as such, and
what she earns shouldnt come into the calculations of the CSA, but it
is!!!
>
>
> it is also against the regulations that refuse them the right
> > to take in the amount my Disabled step son bring in to the house and
> > use that as income.
>
> If he has disability benefits in his own name, thats not income. But
> benefits and things you claim as adults because the child is disabled, in
> your own names - thats often income.
>
income to be passed on to my ex? really? you mean the money my partner
gets via the Familly Tax Credit due to the fact her son is disabled,
is allowed to be given, in part, to my ex? that shouldnt be right!
Sounds like fun to me! thanks for the advice and your angle on it
anyway :)
Just to clarify, I earn 100 quid a week, they want 33 quid of it, see
why im angry???
x x
"KarlJ" <kjone...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:17d6a0cb.04012...@posting.google.com...
> "x x" <x...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<RXUPb.664$eX3...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>...
> > "KarlJ" <kjone...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:17d6a0cb.04012...@posting.google.com...
> > > Right, this is why I am going to end up taking them to court.
> > >
> > > Firstly, as far as I know it is illegal for them to calculate my
> > > earning based on what my partner earns, also I belive that they arnt
> > > allowed to calculate any income that relevant children bring in.
> >
> >
> > They can't treat partner's earnings as yours. Your net income and
partners
> > net income are supposed to be treated seperately, with actual assessment
> > based on your income.
>
> but they are treating my partners income as part of the calculation
> due to the fact they are assesing 100% of the famillys (not mine) tax
> credits as part of the assesment. They do this because it is paid to
> me, as the highest earner, even though they admit, in black and white,
> that it isnt based soely on what i earn.
But the law says that the tax credit is treated as the income of the highest
earner, which if it is you means that it is included as income in the
assessment.
But the tax credit isn't your partners income. Neither is it yours.
It is paid to the family, but treated as the income of highest earner.
Not exactly the best way of doing things, but so far the government have
refused to listen to ideas that the tax credit should be treated as 50/50,
or as proportional based on proportion of income.
>
> Now forgive me if im wrong, but if they arew basing a calculation on
> another calculation, and the later of these calculations happens to be
> partly based on my partners earnings, then are they or are they not
> infact basing there calculations on my partners earnings or not?
No. The tax credit isn't based on your partner earnings (unless you aren't
earning).
Its based on family income and number of hours worked.
>
> >
> > Kids income? That is taken into account above a certain level (means
rich
> > people can't stick all their savings in kids names).
> > Certain benefits and tax credits are treated as the income of the
highest
> > earner.
> >
> Re above, Andrew is Disabled, due to his disabilty we actually get a
> boost to our Familly Tax credit, the CSA then use this boost as part
> of the calculations.
Disablility premium? Thats the tax credit, which is adult income. Not
Andrew's income in his own right.
Now if he got DLA, that would be in his own right and couldn't be touched
for the assessment.
> Again, this isnt a calculation that is based soely on my earnings, but
> one which is based partly upon my Step Son (and im not even married)
> being disabled, for which the goverment body inland revenue appreciate
> and fund.
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > However, they state...
> > >
> > > "The income of any partner is not included in the calculation of net
> > > income. We look at a partner's income only to determine whether they
> > > can cover half the costs of their own children and to see if the
> > > maintenance paid by the non-resident parent should be reduced to
> > > safeguard their second family."
> > >
> > > and also...
> > >
> > > "A child's earnings are not included in the assessment."
> > >
> > > and yet I also read that they take my Familly Tax Credit as part of my
> > > income, as long as I am the main earner.
> >
> > They are correct in that.
> > If your partner was the highest earner, the tax credit would be treated
as
> > her income.
> >
> Where does it state this in law? I want to know! I do know that if my
> partner and I earn the same amount then we are treated as equals and
> so only 50% of it is taken into account, but where does it state 100%
> must be taken into account if less than 100% but more than 50% of it
> is due to the absent parent.
Taken from the decision makers guide (which is the CSA bible) at
http://www.csa.gov.uk/dmg/index.htm
For FC, insert tax credit.
Both members of the couple working
4542 If, in the assessment period (4071 and 4214) the earnings of the NRP or
PWC were more than those of the partner, FC is treated as the income of that
parent1 and taken into account in full.
1 Sch 1, para 7( 3)( a)
EXAMPLE
John is a NRP. He lives with Jenny and their 3 children. Both are
working. John earns £90 per week.
Jenny's earnings are £32 per week. Because John's earnings are more
than Jenny's, FC is treated as his income.
4543 If, in the assessment period, the NRP or PWC and partner had the same
earnings, half the amount of FC in payment is treated as the income of each
partner1.
1 Sch 1, para 7( 3)( b)
EXAMPLE
Sarah is a PWC. She is married to Toby and has 2 children from her
previous marriage.
Both Sarah and Toby earn £65 per week. Because their earnings are the
same, only half of the amount of FC in payment is treated as Sarah's income.
The other half is treated as Toby's income.
4544 If, in the assessment period, the earnings of the NRP or PWC were less
than those of their partner, FC is not treated as that parent's income1.
1 CS (MASC) Regs, Sch 1, para 7( 3)( c)
EXAMPLE
Alan is a NRP. He has a partner, Sylvia and 4 children. Both Alan and
Sylvia are working. Alan earns £70 per week. Sylvia's wages are £80 per
week. Any FC in payment is not treated as Alan's income.
Parent and their partner have been working
4545 If on or before the effective date (2301), either or both the parent or
partner has finished work, only half of the amount of FC in payment is
treated as the parent's income1.
1 Sch 1, para 7( 4)
EXAMPLE
Jenny ceased work on 30.4.94.
FC is £20.00 per week.
Effective date 10.5.94.
John's income from FC is £10 per week.
>
> >
> >
> > They will totally ignore the
> > > fact that part of that figure is derived from the fact that Dawn, my
> > > G/F has an income, and also the fact that Andrew (one of the relevent
> > > other children) is dissabled.
> >
> > That doesn't actually come into it. Family tax credit doesn't take
account
> > of who earns what. Just the income of the family, and if any of you work
> > over a certain number of hours a week.
> >
> It does also take into account Andrew is disabled. Familly tax credit
> obviously does take into account who earns what due to the fact they
> send it to me and not Partner.
Nope. The amount of tax credit is based on how much is earnt, not who earns
it.
And the majority of the time, its sent to the woman. Did you put the claim
in or did her?
they also ask you who earns what. Maybe
> im not quite sure what your saying, because that is obviously wrong.
>
> > The child's own disability money isn't income. But stuff paid to the
parents
> > can be, depending on what it is.
> >
> They (IR) pay us money to help look after Andrew, it isnt money that
> is therefore intended to go to Ex.
Thats just it - its paid to you.
Stuff in his name payable to him, thats his income. But stuff paid to you
for looking after him - most government departments would treat as your
income.
> >
> > They will do this no matter how much I
> > > protest unless my and my partners earning are equal, in which case
> > > they will then asses it as 50%.
> >
> > Because they are correct to do so.
> >
> You a judge?
>
No. But I do know a little about the child support act, and the agency.
> > Whether the law is right, thats a seperate issue. The CSA will have to
stick
> > to the law as it is, not how they or you would like it to be, until it
is
> > changed.
> >
> what law?
Child Support Act 1991, plus all its amendments since.
The way they treat tax credit is the same way they treat its forerunner,
family credit, and has been that way since 1993 when the act first came into
force.
If you don't like the act, get it changed.
>
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > This is plainly against the regulations that refuse them the right to
> > > take into the calculations what my partner earns and treat it as my
> > > income,
> >
> > But its not what your partner earns - its tax credit paid to the family
and
> > treated as the highest earner receiving it.
> >
> >
> but what I recieve isnt based on my earnings, it is based partly on my
> partners earnings, and so therefore should be treated as such, and
> what she earns shouldnt come into the calculations of the CSA, but it
> is!!!
The tax credit is based on family income.
Perhaps it shouldn't all be treated as your income for child support, many
of us disagree with that and have for years.
But that is the way it is.
You can't argue with the CSA as an agency about it because its the act you
need to change, not the people who implement the act.
>
>
> >
> >
> > it is also against the regulations that refuse them the right
> > > to take in the amount my Disabled step son bring in to the house and
> > > use that as income.
> >
> > If he has disability benefits in his own name, thats not income. But
> > benefits and things you claim as adults because the child is disabled,
in
> > your own names - thats often income.
> >
> income to be passed on to my ex? really? you mean the money my partner
> gets via the Familly Tax Credit due to the fact her son is disabled,
> is allowed to be given, in part, to my ex? that shouldnt be right!
I agree with shouldn't.
A uch fairer system would be that only the portion of tax credit that you
affect personally is treated as income.
Or even not treating it as income at all.
But the government haven't yet agreed to that.
Them wanting that much with you earning that little?
I'm on £4 a week more than you.
Any assessment on me would be minimum amount, even though my wife earns
double what I do.
Martin <><
KarlJ
> > why im angry???
>
> Them wanting that much with you earning that little?
> Any assessment on me would be minimum amount, even though my wife earns
> double what I do.
>
Its actually worse than that Martin, apparently, according to the
assesor, that is after the reductions due to the fact I have 3
relevant other children! or it would be a fair bit more. The claim is
for two children. It seems to me that most of the money they are
taking is comming out of the familly funds.
by the way, thanks for the comments so far.