08-08-2017, 02:48 PM
Hi,
CMS have recently told me that as I have exact 50:50 in Court Orders that I am over the 175 days and am no longer considered a NRP by them.
They never told me this at the start. They have therefore agreed, as older child is no longer in FT education to:-
a: remove younger child from the case. Both children were on same case. Eldest already gone.
b: confirm that the case will be closed
c: confirm that unless Court Orders change no further case will be opened
d: write and explain why younger child was on case at all
e: calculate what charges if any were assessed (wrongly) for younger child and let me know.
f: not open another case unless and until there is a variation of the Order.
g: write to me and confirm all the above
(Interestingly for anyone going to Court, my eldest was removed from an earlier 50:50 Order because of their age at the time, 14, and ex frustrated all their attempts to stay with me. CMS, in this case believed the mother as there was no Court Order to default to and CMS stated that as the Order did not specifically state the times it was the times the mother claimed/achieved that were what counted even though the Order used terms like 'both parents must use ever effort to facilitate their wishes to spend time with either parent', and 'anticipate that they will divide their time equally between the parents' So I would suggest that a default time is included in any Order that covers this especially for older children. Such as 'equally and for half the year with each parent on days the child chooses unless they decide otherwise from time to time'. Someone else will have a better form of words for this.). I would suggest then, for anyone with older children that the statement of the 50:50 is vital and deviation from it should be the choice of the child and that whilst there many not be a Child Arrangements Order for them this default position will greatly reduce the mothers stranglehold on control. Perhaps an offer to the Court that both parents place an appropriate sum of money into a joint pot that is allocated by agreement to the child's needs. The CMS said that had there been an Order/timetable they would have gone by that.
CB have recently told me that:-
a: I can claim for Child Tax Credits (there is no need to have CB) and which will be granted if,
(i) There is no open claim (by ex)
(ii) ex does not object (as she has CB)
(iii) If there is 'open' claim but nil payment because of ex and partner's household income they will look at it on 'evidence'
(iv) and that I can open another claim for CB whilst previous case is heading towards Fl Tribunal
(v) If she is not getting other benefits she might be hanging on to CB to protect pension contributions.
The majority of all this is totally contrary to what I have been told previously.
Local Authority Benefits have told me that:-
a: CMS decisions and statements above (whilst yet to be confirmed in writing) will greatly help my formal request for Reconsideration of their Single Person's allowance for Housing benefit and possibly open the door for 2 bedroom rate or ongoing discretionary payment to move towards that.
Not surprisingly I hope that this comes true and pass it on in case it is of use to anyone else.
CMS have recently told me that as I have exact 50:50 in Court Orders that I am over the 175 days and am no longer considered a NRP by them.
They never told me this at the start. They have therefore agreed, as older child is no longer in FT education to:-
a: remove younger child from the case. Both children were on same case. Eldest already gone.
b: confirm that the case will be closed
c: confirm that unless Court Orders change no further case will be opened
d: write and explain why younger child was on case at all
e: calculate what charges if any were assessed (wrongly) for younger child and let me know.
f: not open another case unless and until there is a variation of the Order.
g: write to me and confirm all the above
(Interestingly for anyone going to Court, my eldest was removed from an earlier 50:50 Order because of their age at the time, 14, and ex frustrated all their attempts to stay with me. CMS, in this case believed the mother as there was no Court Order to default to and CMS stated that as the Order did not specifically state the times it was the times the mother claimed/achieved that were what counted even though the Order used terms like 'both parents must use ever effort to facilitate their wishes to spend time with either parent', and 'anticipate that they will divide their time equally between the parents' So I would suggest that a default time is included in any Order that covers this especially for older children. Such as 'equally and for half the year with each parent on days the child chooses unless they decide otherwise from time to time'. Someone else will have a better form of words for this.). I would suggest then, for anyone with older children that the statement of the 50:50 is vital and deviation from it should be the choice of the child and that whilst there many not be a Child Arrangements Order for them this default position will greatly reduce the mothers stranglehold on control. Perhaps an offer to the Court that both parents place an appropriate sum of money into a joint pot that is allocated by agreement to the child's needs. The CMS said that had there been an Order/timetable they would have gone by that.
CB have recently told me that:-
a: I can claim for Child Tax Credits (there is no need to have CB) and which will be granted if,
(i) There is no open claim (by ex)
(ii) ex does not object (as she has CB)
(iii) If there is 'open' claim but nil payment because of ex and partner's household income they will look at it on 'evidence'
(iv) and that I can open another claim for CB whilst previous case is heading towards Fl Tribunal
(v) If she is not getting other benefits she might be hanging on to CB to protect pension contributions.
The majority of all this is totally contrary to what I have been told previously.
Local Authority Benefits have told me that:-
a: CMS decisions and statements above (whilst yet to be confirmed in writing) will greatly help my formal request for Reconsideration of their Single Person's allowance for Housing benefit and possibly open the door for 2 bedroom rate or ongoing discretionary payment to move towards that.
Not surprisingly I hope that this comes true and pass it on in case it is of use to anyone else.