Son had packed in Uni now wants to return.

hawaythelads wrote:

He deferred the course.
He''s going back to finish the same course that he has completed yr1 and yr2 and now he''s going to do yr3.
If he''d gone bang yr1,2,3 all in a row you would''ve paid your ex the moolah.
So ok he deferred but at the end of the day it ain''t costing you anymore.
So that''s why i''d pay it let him know you don''t expect any more fecking about and let her know this is the fecking last dough she will besseing as she''s bled it dry on a psstake technicality and she''s fecking lucky you''re paying it at all.
All the best
HRH x

This will be his 4th year I will be paying for if I give in. I have not mentioned his first year was a waste of time because he wrapped then too and started a different Degree from scratch on his second year,

Shiver Metimbers wrote:

hawaythelads wrote:

He deferred the course.
He''s going back to finish the same course that he has completed yr1 and yr2 and now he''s going to do yr3.
If he''d gone bang yr1,2,3 all in a row you would''ve paid your ex the moolah.
So ok he deferred but at the end of the day it ain''t costing you anymore.
So that''s why i''d pay it let him know you don''t expect any more fecking about and let her know this is the fecking last dough she will besseing as she''s bled it dry on a psstake technicality and she''s fecking lucky you''re paying it at all.
All the best
HRH x

This is sound advice hawaythelads man,probably the cheapest option for all. But what would you suggest if this time next year he enroles for a second degree?

Well after this year the response for any further degree from me would then well and truely be feck off to the pair of em.
Oh and the judge an all.
I can see why they have stretched this to the point of be extremely fecking annoying what with the first pxss take year and now the deferment. It is proper ex wife bleeding the walking wallet that is tje ex husband dry shamelessly. Its the fecking school marmsy attitude that accompanies the blatant greed that always knocks me bandy. The supercilious snottishness that they actually get a lawyer on it as if youre the unreasonable one. The shameless sense of entitlement they consider they still have to ypur hard earnt moolah is a fecking disgrace.
ROLE ON 5 YEARS TIME ONLY ANOTHER £23600 LEFT TO PAY MY MONEY GRABBING XXXXX OF AN EX HARRIDAN

All the best
HRH xx

Thanks for your input Hawaythelads.

My Solicitor basically has said the same as most, the order is very poorly written. He is looking at it in more detail and is going to look at some sort of reference book from that time, which advises on how paragraphs should be worded. As the word Tertiary has not been used he seems to think at the time of writing it means just further education, i.e. A levels. (sixth form) It''s now becoming an expensive play on words.

Granted that the order is very badly drafted, the thing that occurred to me is that you were actually paying while your son was at uni, and if you did that, then it seems to me that you accepted that it did mean you accepted you would support him through uni and you would, I believe, find it hard to argue that university education was not contemplated by the order.

I personally believe that, if university education is contemplated, the wording ought to be sufficiently clear to leave no doubt.
Similarly, that if a gap year is intended, the order should say so. Equally, I believe that in most cases support should not extend beyond completion of the first degree, and that support should be paid directly to the child if (s)he has attained majority.

So I suppose you do at least have an option of trying to negotiate with your ex and/or your child as to how long support should continue, with a view to amending the order by consent so that there is no further doubt and you can at least look forward to the time when your liability will end. Furthermore, I''d like to see it worded so that there is no doubt the money goes to your son.

But if you want to try and end your liability now, I''d say the best line of argument is that a terminating event has occurred ( namely your son ceasing full time education ) and therefore the order has lapsed and can''t be revived. There is judicial authority for this at the highest level,

But haway has a point, you always have to balance the possible cost of a contested application against the cost of a workable compromise.

LMM