Final order dependent on benefits

The final order has been granted, it included the X selling the FMH, keeping all the equity and receiving a lump sum so they can buy a new property mortgage free. This was based on their alleged inability to work and therefore needing financial security. At the time the order was made, the X was claiming JSA - contribution based - while under assessment for ongoing ill-health and CMS for the two children. The final order states that the nominal spousal maintenance payments of £1 per annum are based on X continuing to receive benefits at the same level and CMS for both children

Six months later the house is almost sold, the X is looking for jobs (turns out they weren't as ill as anticipated) and is still claiming UC and CMS for two children. However in the last three months, the child hearing was also resolved, confirming one of the children lives with me as he has been doing for the last 15 months, despite the X claiming otherwise. He is nearly 16 so the court order does not provide a "live with" order, but does confirm his choice to live with me. As such, I would like to stop making CMS payments for him as I have had to do for the last 15 months despite the fact he receives no benefit from them. Unfortunately I have been told by the CMS in order to change the payments, I need to claim the CB for him, which would have the knock-on effect of dropping down the X's UC as well as reducing the CB and CMS payments. When I phoned CMS to talk about this and asked if it were possible for them to still receive CB while changing CMS payments, I was told my payments could be not change without CB. I was also asked why would I want not want to claim as its about where the child lives and to do otherwise is benefit fraud on the X's part?

My question is, if I do claim the CB - to which I am entitled as the child is living with me - given the wording in the hearing, can X take me back to court to vary the order? And do the figures make a difference? I.e., X will be about £450 a month worse off without additional UC payments and CMS for one of tbe children but will be about £400 a month better off living mortgage free in the new house. Also, they can now apparently get a job.
I don't want to go back to court, it was horrendous, but I don't want to be paying significant sums for my son to an X he won't even stay overnight with - despite my best efforts, but that's another story - and sees no benefit from. Any help, gratefully received.

Don’t just claim the CB. You should also make a CMS claim against them for your son. If they are on benefits then it will be very little but it is right that both parents should contribute towards the cost of their children. It also might not be for very long depending when your son finishes school and his choices beyond that.

If your ex hasn’t told UC etc of the change in circumstances and is claiming for a child that isn’t living with them then they are committing benefit fraud.

In theory they could apply to the court to have the £1 a year SM increased but is highly unlikely to and even less likely to be successful.

Thanks WYSPECIAL, that's really helpful to hear and follows what I was thinking about the fraud aspect too. Appreciate you taking the time to reply

As an update, the house is now sold, X is in her own house - mortgage free - and is working again. Only £5k a year, nine hours a week but more than she has been for the last year of the financial court proceedings. She has also agree (finally) that I should not be paying CMS payments for the son who lives with me and has written to them to confirm this. Unfortunately she didn't date it so the CMS have a disputed date in and won't update the payments until this is confirmed.

The CMS have also said they have never seen a court order which places a contingency on the recipient receiving Child Benefit and UC at the same levels before. As this is usually outside the remit of the family court, and of course both could change depending on the age and educational journey of the children in the case of the CB, and as and when she deigns to work in the case of UC, this seems a very odd one to put in the court order.

Can anyone tell me if they've had this, if it is normal, and what if anything I can do about it as she's still threatening to take me back to court should I claim the child benefit or do anything to disrupt her UC despite it basically being benefit fraud?

Hmm. I suspect this was a clumsy way of linking the nominal sm to her continuing to have care of the children. As she is now mortgage free, working and solvent I imagine you could apply for a variation of the maintenance clause to get it removed by the court.

Hadenoughnow

Thanks for the response, can you apply for a variation for a final order (not by consent)? If so, and you know how this can be done, could you share how I go about this?

You can complete Form A or A1 to vary spousal maintenance so I imagine this would be the route for varying nominal sm too.