Reducing income by pension contributions – how the CSA decide what is reasonable – if you consider you are paying excessive amounts of money to your ex-partner via CSA how can you legitimately reduce your payments– its ugly but a way of getting increased access perhaps without declaring this and also preventing your ex partner using your cash payments to fight you for increased access where this is being denied and you have to fight it through the courts - the point here is thatthet are financially motivated to prevent access because you pay more when you dont have staying overnight access and use you as a cash machine. What options are available and how do the CSA view this action – My understanding is its perfectly legal and therefore do CSA take the reduced percentage of your net income (in the case of unmarried parents its 15%) or do they have the powers and conviction to assess what maybe considered “reasonable” or indeed just follow the 15% of net income? if you stop paying presumably they have teh powers to take direct from your employer and possibly convict you of a criminal ofference - Please help and or can anyone suggest any names of CSa I dependant experts for me to consult
As far as I know, there is no fixed amount that is classed as fair, or not (unless it's changed since I went to tribunal about 6 years ago, which is possible). Firstly, though, bear in mind that if you increase your pension contributions, you are reducing your own disposable income, and if, say, you are supporting 1 child, the amount you pay your ex will reduce by 15% of your increased pension contributions, but your reduction in takehome pay will be 85% of your increase, so make sure you can afford the pension increase.
If it looks as though you are increasing your pension simply to avoid or reduce your maintenance (my ex tried putting 100% of income into pension at the same time as I opened a case with the CSA), then your ex could try for a variation, in which case they tribunal makes a decision on what they think is reasonable, and that takes into account your circumstances (after my tribunal, when I was chatting to someone from the CSA, they said that they had a case of someone who had increased their pension to about 25% of income, but had done it at the time of a new relationship and was putting money aside to account for this, and this was acceptable). If a tribunal goes against you, then it could hurt you (in my own case, the tribunal dismissed the whole of my ex's contribution to pension - I was expecting them to allow 20% - so she had to pay maintenance on the whole of her income backdated to when I started the claim.
One other factor to consider - the CSA don't consider changing maintenance unless there is a 25% change in your income - though I'm not sure whether this includes pensions.
I am sure maybe that it has crossed our minds to get back at our exes by reducing our payments but at the end of the day the money is for our own flesh and blood,i pay into a works pension and I pay the maximum but that's a way of making sure I have a secure living after I retire,i can add to it but I never would as it means my son would be getting less and that's not the way it is supposed to be,your child needs your money than ourselves please remember that
I agree lewy - when I was paying maintenance in the days before I had residence, I only increased my pension when I got a pay rise, so some of that (but not all) went towards my pension. Having said that, it was a voluntary agreement and I was paying 25% of gross and I wasn't taking any other reductions for step children or travel costs - as you say, it's your own flesh and blood, and it came back to bite my ex as when I got residence and she did everything possible to stop paying maintenance, my kids realised who really had their best interests at heart.
Its a very difficult one to balance out as we have got to support our children and yet we need to make sure that we can be secure after we retire and to be honest I am not sure that Maintenance would be reduced much anyway by paying a load into a Pension.
As much as we would like to get back at our exes our kids need the financial support and the money is hopefully being spent on them (I say hopefully) just annoys me that we don't get a say on where the money goes to.
Does anyone actually know what CSA rules apply and is able to give definitive guidance on the position is or is able to recommend a specialist advisor that can be engaged.?
Observations are:-
The money paid isnt controlled and often there is no way of knowing if the money for the child actually goes to the child
The CSA appears to work to a different set of rules from that of HMRC but no one seems to know what they are
Lewy, again I agree - the prime reason for putting money into pension is to put money away for your retirement (and it's tax efficient to do so), not to reduce maintenance, and you are correct, that it doesn't make a massive difference in maintenance anyway, unless you are being really silly about it.
Daddy1 - the CSA do not have any rules about how the money should be used, and you have to bear in mind that supporting the children is more than simply food and clothes, it also includes providing a suitable environment for them, so that includes household running costs etc. The figures were presumably worked out on a basis of an average over all and there will always be winners and losers on both sides at the extremes of maintenance payments.
@actd yes we all have to think about our own flesh and blood however there is a huge disparity in courts for what is fair. My ex wife earns in excess of £140k/year. I was my sons main carer stay at home dad until he was five where I then took on part time work they worked around his school times. When we separated my ex won custody in court I was granted fortnightly letters and CMS take their usual 12% of gross income. As fathers I’m sure we all want to provide for our children but it’s hard not to perceive courts and the CMS as totally biased towards mothers.
Hi, I appreciate I'm late to the party on this one but would appreciate some advice. HCBM has kicked out my daughter (14), who now lives with me, and has alienated me from my son (16) through lies and other parental alienation tactics. She chooses to work minimal hours to be able to claim benefits and pay me next to nothing in maintenance for our daughter whilst I now pay 2/3 of what I used to for the two children, just for my son. I don't begrudge him the money but she has already "mysteriously" had 3 foreign holidays this year. My dilemma now is that I am going to receive a windfall due to my employer being bought and I don't want her to get the significant increase (c£250pcm) to spend on herself. I've been led to believe that payments into occupational pensions are taken into account by the CMA when calculating payments due so would paying a lump sum into my occupational pension offset the increase in my gross salary? Any tips gratefully received. Thanks
The CMS should use two tables to determine if the pension contribution are excessive. The first is a table from the defunct FSA. It determines the amount you can contribute depending on the age you started your pension contributions. For example, if you started your pension at 40, you can contribute between 18-25% of your gross income. The other table is a gross replacement rate table. This fancy term means the percentage of your current salary you should have after retirement. For example, if your salary is between 25,000 and 49,999 pounds a year, your contributions till retirement and current pots should provide a pension of at least 60% of your salary. For example, if you earn 40,000, you are entitled contributions that allow you to get a 20,000 a year pension. The document they should use it the following (note that the do whatever they want and you have to take them to court if they don't follow their own rules).
@edpacket this is interesting information, before i try to pick it all apart, i'm wondering how it applies in my circumstance, in that i started contributing to a pension some 25 years ago, but awful wage and tiny contribution, but for say the last 8 years i've massively ramped it up and my pension is 90% from the last 8 years, so does that mean on the table i'd be wrong to assume the 16-22% is "reasonable" and also it says contribution but i don't see if it says if that means just yours or the combination of both you and your employer, as that makes quite a difference to me.
thanks for sharing!
My impression is that the table was never intended for the purpose it is being used by the CMS. It was created by the defunct FSA to highlight that the later you started contributing, the more you have to contribute (pretty humble purpose and nothing more than that). As you are finding, it doesn't take into account if you have contributed 10 pounds for 30 years or if you started contributing and stop, etc. It doesn't make sense but the CMS people use it as a bible (they take anyone from the street to be a case worker so they need an script as they don't know anything about laws, pensions, math, etc.). if you started contributing at 30 yo, they allow you to contribute between 12-18% that is it. No if not buts. In that case, you have to push them to consider the second table. This makes more sense as it asks what percentage of your salary are you going to retire with and allows you to contribute accordingly to reach that target. The pension we are talking about includes yours and your employer.