The submitter of this evidence has requested that the committee consider treating this evidence as anonymous
Before 2014, I paid child maintenance to my ex-partner without the CMS, based on the child maintenance calculator online.
In 2014, ‘out of the blue’, she just phoned CMS and then now have to do it via CMS unfortunately. But I was paying the correct amount and didn’t want it to be managed through CMS. So, she shouldn’t have been able or allowed to do this.
The CMS letters are poorly written.
The calculations aren’t laid out clearly.
The letters also state that I have arrears, which isn’t true.
There aren’t any examples in the pamphlet reflecting my situation.
It’s offensive that I’m just referred to as the paying parent.
They work out a weekly amount, and then it’s ridiculous that this is then increased by a few pence to take account of the fact that a year is 52 weeks and a day, just paying the calculated weekly amount and ignoring the fact that a year is one day longer than 52 weeks would make the calculations clearer and simpler.
I rarely if ever receive a response when I ask a question online e.g. query a calculation. All I get is an acknowledgement that they’ve received my query.
My pension payments which should be deducted from gross salary aren’t processed, despite providing the required information at the right time. The CMS case worker doesn’t deduct it like it’s supposed to be. I have to chase this up multiple times before they process it.
I’m a brilliant dad and would love to see my son more. It is safe for him to see me.
In 2015, my ex-partner lied in the family courts making up a case against me, and making multiple false allegations. Her behaviour was morally reprehensible. Despite this, the biased family court judge ruled in her favour. She only did this for financial reasons to get more money from me via child maintenance.
The method of calculation is wrong and results in having to pay her too much.
The £200 limit hasn’t been increased for inflation since 1998. £200 doesn’t now reflect the weekly cost of living for the non-resident parent.
It doesn’t make sense why child maintenance doesn’t taper away as income goes up. When the percentage falls from 12% to 9%, at weekly gross income of £800, it should reduce by more e.g. from 12% to 3%. The child maintenance payment calculated based on 12% at a level of £800 of weekly gross income is an amount that is more than enough to cover the things my son needs.
She is not a single mother. She is married, has a job, has a significant passive income from inheritance from her late father, her husband also has a job. The child maintenance calculation doesn’t take this into account.