Pension contributions - what is deemed a diversion of income ?
I made my submissions to the MR in what I thought was a very well worded letter, including the calculation in para 36020 backed up by pension statements. Still waiting to hear a response back, but I certainly will post it here when I hear.
Apparently the head of the FIU is handling it.
Update - the MR has resulted in no change on either decision (notional income or pension contributions).
The official MR letter states that 'no new evidence has been received to contradict the findings of the FIU report'.
There is no explanation or rebuttal of the arguments I made in my submission to the MR at all. There are several questions which have simply not been answered - such as 'What specific reasons are there why para 36020 does not apply even though the calculation within that para deems that my pension contributions are acceptable ?' (I provided a full working of the 36020 calculation along with all supporting evidence such as pension statements). They have refused to acknowledge facts which support my arguments which are evidenced by the case notes I received in response to my SAR. It is truly baffling - it is almost like someone has pressed the 'Computer Says No' button and they are refusing to provide justification for their stance and decisions even when I have provided full reasoning why their decisions are wrong.
The case workers won't tell me whether they agree with the FIU or not - I suppose I understand that they have to present a united front as an organisation, but the fact that they won't confirm their support for the FIU's decisions either speaks volumes to me. They just tell me that the FIU's decision is final and no-one in the CMS can amend it or overrule it.
I wonder how many decsiions by the FIU have actually been changed in a MR - because it seems to me that it is more important to them to stand by their original decision than it is to admit they got it wrong - even if they plainly have. They won't even rebut my arguments why a change is appropriate other than to say 'no new evidence'. In the search for an explanation for all this I still cannot dismiss the notion that my ex-, a recently retired senior manager in the CMS for decades including in Enforcement, has called in a favour from her ex-colleagues. I don't suppose I will ever find any evidence of that even it does happen to be true. And the fact that the FIU's decision is 'untouchable' (at least from within the CMS, with no internal review or oevrsight possible) would help them cling on to unsustainable positions.
So off to HMCTS we go.
Might be worth contacting your local MP also to raise a complaint.
@actd Yes I’m contemplating making a complaint that the FIU have not properly explained why my arguments against their decision are not valid, and have not answered a lot of questions I have asked. Either complain to the CMS or perhaps as you suggest make my MP aware. I will of course be taking this to appeal with HMCTS as well.
However, I’m also thinking that their failure to do this might work to my advantage in the appeal, so also I’m thinking to leave it alone.
This whole saga has been so draining and stressful and I am utterly fed up with it, so it could be that I am not thinking straight about it or perhaps thinking too much and tying my brain up in knots about what the best thing to do is.
I would go to your MP sooner rather than later, purely because the process can be pretty slow. Put everything down in writing to give to your MP when you meet so that nothing gets missed (easily done if you have a conversation only, and just taking notes). You can do it at the same time as other avenues.