I am currently trying to get SM increased - my ex has a new partner living with him - will her income, assets etc.. affect the SM payments I may get?will it mean I might get less as he now has more expenses to pay with a partner living with him?? Or does it mean I could get more as their household income has increased? It is just the 2 of them no kids - I have one child at college and another one just left Uni now living with me at home looking for employment.
You''ve not had a response, so I''ll give this a go;
If you go to Court for a upward variation, there is always a risk that after the whole re-assessment there may be a downward variation.
If you chose to go for a variation at Court, the crux for the formula seems to be the need for the increase by the receiver and the ability for the payer to pay.
As far as I''m aware your ex''s new girlfriend''s income/assets etc. are not taken into consideration, but his household expenses may be deemed to be halved as he''s sharing the costs.
So Bills & rent etc. could be reduced by 50%.
Its always worth calculating the gain of a potential increase pa vs the cost of returning to Court and factor into that the time since the last Order and changes that may mean there may not be an increase or infact a decrease or Nominal may be ordered.
The problem here is that you have only been awarded nominal SM of 5p per year, LittleMrMike has explained about applications for upward variations on SM, and the risks involved on one of your earlier posts - see
Thank you for your response - I currently get 5p a year so I guess it could get reduced to 1p? My household income yearly is 11k to me being unable to work as I have a debilitating illness - I rent a property. His income is £85k a year not including his new partners salary etc... There are significant changes since the order was put in place my kids are no longer in education so I don''t get csa, tax credits, child benefit. This means he is now an extra £500 a month better off aswell due to not paying me csa payments. I thought it was worth the risk as the difference in household income is huge and he could easily pay more and I guess if it was decreased I could lose 4p a year! The only problem is the cost to go back. I presume if the partner is contributing in household bills that would work in my favour as it means he would have more ability to pay?
Thank you for your response I think this is what you mean??
I sympathise with your illness but did you have this when you first went to court as this would have been considered and the judge would have been aware that the kids would be out of school in x amount of years- So not sure this qualifies as a ''significant change''
Just because your ex has a new partner on a good income is not justification for you to get more money, otherwise how would people every be able to truely move on without fear that a second bite of the cherry was on the horrizon?
I have had my illness for 30 years and worked most of the time we were married until I was forced to leave. This was not considered by the judge at all - and yes it was pointed out that the kids would be leaving school. The significant change is that my income has greatly reduced and outgoings greatly increased - whereas my ex''s expenses have greatly reduced and his income has greatly increased. I have no idea what my ex partner earns - - all I know is that my kids are suffering and I am struggling to look after them financially. It seems to me that once we got divorced he has no obligation to ensure his kids have what they need. He divorced me not his kids although he never bothered with them when we were married - partly the reason for divorce. I go without to ensure they have a home and are fed - just don''t understand why this should be the case when this maintenance order is open - what''s the point of it then? I''m not asking for a lot just enough to ensure that they have what they need. Why should they suffer??? just because their father doesn''t care - he can punish me all he wants I''m used to it but i''m not understanding why they have to suffer. I dont want a second bite at any cherry but if there is a maintenance option open why can''t it be used?? He agreed to the sm to be left open if he didn''t want me to go back why agree to it?