font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:<hr height="1" noshade>Originally posted by MelanieGiles
Whilst it seems that this issue has now been resolved, with some element of satisfaction, please understand Bradders that your IP does not accept modifications for you without your express agreement. I'm referring to the £45 uplift which you are suggesting was agreed without prior consultation with yourself, unless I am getting confused.
To stop you supporting your child through further education is unfair and inconsistent with GT's usual voting policy. If there is a written agreement with your wife that this is how your maintenance will be paid, they can hardly seek to overturn this. Personally if I were acting for you, I would be digging in on this, as the IVA is being set up to fail given that most parents will prioritise their childrent's welfare and education before repaying debts. And in bankruptcy, this expenditure would most likely be allowable.
Hi Melanie
Thanks for the comments and they cetainly are very interesting. The extra £45 was explained but only when I asked specifically for clarification, I have a 20yr old step son living with us as well as my daughter (13) and my son (18) lives with his mum but comes to us every other weekend. It's my son of 18 who I've been told that I cannot support through University. Are you saying that this is something that I could have fought harder on?
Sorry, I digress, the step son is 20, in a low paid internship pending going back to Uni for his final year in Sep, although he will continue to live with us. Although we had set board at £10 a week taking these things into account, GT argued that we should set it at the same level as if we were receiving child benefit for him, ie £81 per month, so they increased the payment by £45 to reflect that. I couldnt and still don't understand how that argument pertains to a 20 year old, although I accept that student loans are there to pay for accommodation, bills etc so £20 could be considered to be very cheap for those things.
My IP's argument was that GT work to a set of criteria re maintenance payments which they wouldnt waiver from because that would set a precedent...although they did in the end concede to payments to my ex until July, supposedly against their criteria so this again perplexed me.
Maybe this is why I wasnt delighted when the IVA was agreed.