CSA payments & HB claim (NRP claiming)

Hi all,

Sorry if this has been asked before - I’ve had a quick search but can’t seem to find anything relevant.

Should CSA payments, taken direct from employer, be treated as income for HB purposes?  (This is coming from the perspective of a non-resident parent claiming HB, not the parent with care.)

I’ve scoured the CPAG Welfare Benefits & Tax Credits Handbook, and all I can find is conflicting information!  On the one hand, it states that:

“If you pay maintenance to a former partner or a child not living with you, your payments are not disregarded for the purpose of calculating your income for any benefits.” (Source: CIS/683/1993)

This seems pretty unequivocal.  However, earlier on in the same chapter it states:

“Income only counts if it is paid to you for your own use, and does not count if you cannot prevent it being paid to a third party (eg, under an attachment of earnings order)” (Source: R(IS) 4/01)

Does anyone have any experience of challenging the income calculation for someone PAYING child maintenance?  As I have a client who is currently not entitled to HB as their income is too high, however CSA are deducting almost £450pcm from his salary, which if disregarded would mean they were entitled to £18/wk HB (not to mention opening the door to a DHP claim).

Thanks in advance.

In my view, on the facts of the case as stated, the earnings count in full as the claimants.  The earnings are unequivocally those of the claimant’s and the deduction is from that payment - it’s no different to direct payment of Council Tax of a Union sub out of earnings.  The monies haven’t been legally reassigned to a third party; they are merely being paid once out of income.  In short, it’s an administrative arrangement, nothing else.

Hi Keven,

Thanks for your input - I can see what you’re saying, but I still think (hope!) it might be a grey area, based on R(IS) 4/01.  For me, the main difference between the two cases seems to be that in CIS/683/1993, the payments are under a court order but paid by the claimant himself, whereas in R(IS) 4/01 they are recovered direct from source via an attachment of earnings order.  In which case the nature of the ‘administrative arrangement’ does seem to make a difference…

I know a DEO is not strictly a court order, but it does hold some legal sway - and it’s not as if an employee can prevent the payment from being deducted from his/her salary (which is how it differs from union subs), which seems to be the point being made in R(IS) 4/01.

Basically, I’m just trying to work out whether it’s worth a shot or not!