Heidi Allen and her 10 minute Bill – An analysis

5 Responses

  1. Nick Dawkins says:

    Bad enough how the CMS calculate things now. Been in touch with my MP numerous times (Dennis Skinner), on different things about the CMS. Paying parents get penalised all the time. Especially when you still have to pay your tax & NI on top as well as all your bills leaving very little money to do things with my son when he’s with me. Disgraceful

  2. Hi Nick

    The point you’re making is about the calculation itself as a percentage of your income. It’s an argument we hear from a lot of Paying Parents; that the calculation is set at too high a figure, especially for Paying Parents on lower incomes, leaving them unable to do things with their children when their children do come to stay/see them. They also make the point that as the Paying Parent, even if they have 50/50 or close to 50/50 they receive no child benefits, they have no access to the benefits or other financial help and support that Receiving Parents have access to.

    It’s a difficult one. We can see both sides of the discussion. Could we ask… what do you consider would be a fair percentage of your income to be for child maintenance?

  3. Hazy says:

    o think the answer is quite simple.

    Given that say a 24 year old on the minimum wage of £7.05 an hour working 35hrs a week would earn £246.75 a week. £13,830 a year.

    As a single childless person (no such thing as a non resident parent on benefit system) the threshold/cap for working tax credits is £13,400 so he would get a small amount of working tax credits approx £3 a week but hey! It all helps)

    He would also pay Child support based on his gross wage which results in him effectively receiving tax credits then handing those tax credits + some of his wage over in child support.

    This is crazy and turns the principles of the benefit system on its head. (Minimum a person or family needs to live on)

    My suggestion is that all NRP’s keep the first £13.400 of their salary at all times so that they at least get the minimum a single childless person gets for now.

    Once this 24 year old turns 25 he will then get £7.50 an hour. Hooray! He could therefore maybe pay 20% of all income over £13,400 for one child ,30% for 2 children and so on.

    This does two things , gives him a sensible allowance to live on above the minimum so the have some spare cash which they can use to enhance quality time with their children. This may also make NRP’s feel that things are fairer than before, that child support is more affordable. That they have a defined amount for themselves.

    This should then lead to regular and sustained maintenance payments because it will be seen as fairer.

    If an NRP has children with a new partner ans they are on low incomes they will also get benefits so again they may end up receiving tax credits and paying them out again as child support must still be paid to his children from his ex. This results in his seconds families over all income falling.


    No one on benefits should pay anything in child support it is just too punitive. Why should someone on JSA pay £7 from a pittance if they don’t see their kids (which may be because he is alienated).

    I would urge you to double check everything and to Maybe consider whether or not the suggestions made are practical and sensible and worth thinking about.

    It does however mean that men on incomes lower than £13,400 cannot pay child support but the single parent NEVER gets below their benefits entitlement unless they have some tax credit arrears. A single parent would also not be expected to rear children on £13, 400 hence why she gets the whole gamut of benefits including working tax credits at the couple threshold of £20k.

    This is just one of many possible ideas of what is better than the current method.

  4. Hazy says:

    Fixing an error – correct salary for 24 year old is £12,830

  5. Del_M says:

    Well once again we hear about the poor PWC who is struggling. The same PWC that if he/she cant get a payment she likes from his/ her childs other parent can just pay £20 and have the legal weight of the government to bear, Then can with hold access on a whim and play god with peoples lives, whilst there is no low cost assistance available for the NRP. If the NRP is blocked from access to their child they then cant afford legal help because their already being fleeced. Lets us not forget that these PWC’s are probably in receipt of every benefit due to them, and maintenance is not taken into account. As in they may be in receipt of £100pw but this would not reduce what state assistance they are entitled too?

    A fairer system.? is this a system where 2nd family children are worth the same as 1st? instead of the stupidly low payments of £5 a week but the 1st family children are worth £25+ a week .

    Is fairer where the CMS automatically assumes the children stay with the NRP 3 nights a week as default? Because which PWC would want to deny access in a loving caring manner unless the NRP was found to be a safeguarding issue?

    Is fairer where the percentage taken for collect n pay is equalised?

    Is fairer where CMS payments are calculated up to Min wage because the government states its what we need to live on with a flat rate of say 5-10% for anyone earning anything over £27195(average UK earnings).

    Is fairer where the CMS stop cherry picking the best wage in the last 5 years to assess from or the last as they should?

    Is fairer where the CMS stop breaking data protection laws where they inform the PWC how much a NRP earns?

    Is fairer where maintenance is used as income by the PWC and affects other benefits?

    Fair is a funny word when applied to maintenance cases it seems.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *