My ex-partner will not pay me any money for our children, what can I do?
Child maintenance is a payment made by a parent with whom the child does not live with (or with whom the child lives with less often) to the parent who the child usually lives with.
Parents are encouraged to make their own arrangement, agreeing how much child maintenance ought to be paid and then arranging the payments directly. However if a parent refuses to pay, the first port of call is often the Child Maintenance Service (CMS).
As a starting point, it provides a free “no obligation” calculator on its website allowing you to calculate for yourself how much child maintenance you ought to be receiving. If you do not have enough information to use the calculator, you can ask the CMS to carry out a formal assessment. There is a charge for this service but the CMS can access your ex-partner’s tax records to see how much they earn to produce an accurate assessment.
Once you have a calculation, you can see whether your ex-partner will voluntarily agree to pay this amount. If they still refuse, you can use the “collect and pay” service through the CMS in which the CMS will collect the child maintenance payment from your ex and pay it to you. There is however a cost for using this service so it is best to try arranging it yourself if possible.
Related FAQs
Those who are eligible will be contacted directly by HMRC based on tax returns they have received. If you are eligible you will be asked to fill out an online application. HMRC will pay applicants directly.
The guidance asks parties to act responsibly and fairly in performing and enforcing contracts. They are encouraged to act in a spirit of cooperation to achieve practical, just and equitable outcomes. In essence, rather than sticking strictly to the contract as agreed, they are encouraged to give each other leeway to deliver performance differently than they are required to do under the contract.
The Government acknowledges that there may need to be some flexibility to enable developers to meet any existing s106 obligations, in particular financial contributions, during the current health crisis and in recent guidance it encourages Councils “to consider whether it would be appropriate to allow the developer to defer delivery”. However, the Government considers that the existing arrangements for varying a section 106 agreement by way of a deed are sufficient and will not be legislating for any additional temporary mechanisms.
In the absence of any formal variation, the Government does however advise Councils to take a “pragmatic and proportionate approach” to enforcement of planning obligations at the current time.
The Government’s advice does not refer to concerns over the quantum of any planning obligations but is concerned only with the timing for delivery. However, the viability behind many sites is likely to change as a result of temporary site closures, or the availability of construction materials and labour once sites can re-open. Where there is already a s106 agreement in place, a developer may wish to renegotiate their position on the basis that certain planning obligations are no longer affordable.
Where a s106 agreement was entered into longer than 5 years ago, an application can be made to the Council to formally vary a planning obligation that is now “without purpose”. Any refusals can be appealed to the Secretary of State.
Where a s106 agreement was entered into within the last 5 years, the agreement can only be modified with the agreement of the Council. The ability to renegotiate a s106 agreement will therefore come down to the willingness of the Council to accept the revised viability position. Where Councils are willing to consider this, a robust viability assessment agreed with the Council is likely to be needed.
Many policies will only provide business interruption cover if it arises from property damage. The FCA has acknowledged that insurers are entitled to reject claims in relation to such policies, notwithstanding the success of the FCA’s test case in the Supreme Court, and which was generally favourable to policyholders [Insert a link here to our update on the test case]. In other cases the policy wording will be less clear and businesses may legitimately feel that their insurer is wrongly withholding payment.
One route of challenge to an insurer’s decision is via one of the well-publicised class actions. Another route of challenge is by a complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS). This service is open to consumers and small and medium-sized businesses, ‘micro-enterprises’, charities and trusts. The service will be an attractive option for many businesses, as it is free and relatively quick (although it remains to be seen how the service keeps up with an increase in demand as a result of the pandemic). You will need to have complained to your insurer before bringing a complaint with the FOS.
Further details can be found here.
The Government maintains that apprenticeships will be an important part in the economic recovery post-lockdown and therefore ESFA is encouraging training under apprenticeships to continue, even where an apprentice is furloughed, provided that the training does not provide services to or generate income for their employer. E-learning is being encouraged as a method of delivery.