Are we alone?

[lonelymom]

Thanks Mrs C. I've actually got it into my head that she might not get it anyway. I know she wants one, she has for a while, but (unlike my other daughter) she doesn't like people spending their money on her. She'll say 'no, it's okay', or 'no, I'm fine' when she's asked if she wants/needs anything, when actually she really, really does. It's thoughtful, but infuriating at the same time!

I know what you mean about the foreign holidays etc. I'm constantly being made to feel guilty because I can't supply a single foreign holiday, let alone two or three a year. We might manage to get away for 2 or 3 nights camping in the summer hols, but at £16 per night that's all it'll be, a few nights.

[icomefromalanddownunder]

Yes, I agree - go ahead and accept their offer!!

My earlier comments were more about those who return to school after every visit home with, for example the latest designer trainers (just how many pairs do you need???), !

I remember a chat I had with one of my daughter's teachers. We were discussing the number of $20 notes that were handed over the Tuck Shop counter each lunchtime. I said that there was no way that I would give my two so much money, even if I had it to give, and her reply was that it sometimes takes less effort to hand over large sums of money than to share your time.

[Mrs C.]

Well judging by the amount of money spent by certain individuals in CH tuckshop, parents have no time at all!
We see probably , at a rough guesstimate, approx a quarter of the school, several if not every day of the week , and most usually spend in the region of £1- £2 .
The max for juniors is supposed to be £3 a day.
That buys one helluva lot of sweets!!

When we were in the boys boarding house, 4 years or so ago, juniors were supposed to be allowed no more than £2.50 a week!

[J.R.]

Well judging by the amount of money spent by certain individuals in CH tuckshop, parents have no time at all!
We see probably , at a rough guesstimate, approx a quarter of the school, several if not every day of the week , and most usually spend in the region of £1- £2 .
The max for juniors is supposed to be £3 a day.
That buys one helluva lot of sweets!!

When we were in the boys boarding house, 4 years or so ago, juniors were supposed to be allowed no more than £2.50 a week!

QUESTION FOR JH.

If I remember rightly, we were limited on how much money we could actually take back to school at the beginning of term. I think it was about £2 per term, which we could draw from a housemaster on a weekly basis, usually a couple of bob a week.

Can you remember more clearly ?

[Barnes Mum]

There is a minimum amount that the children have to bring back per term for pocket money. (This is the amount my D.D brings each term.) Although I'm not sure if there's an upper limit.

[onewestguncopse]

I not sure that there is a maximum amount. As with most things, some have more than others. What I do know is the most older pupils use bank accounts to manage their money now.

[jhopgood]

Well judging by the amount of money spent by certain individuals in CH tuckshop, parents have no time at all!
We see probably , at a rough guesstimate, approx a quarter of the school, several if not every day of the week , and most usually spend in the region of £1- £2 .
The max for juniors is supposed to be £3 a day.
That buys one helluva lot of sweets!!

When we were in the boys boarding house, 4 years or so ago, juniors were supposed to be allowed no more than £2.50 a week!

QUESTION FOR JH.

If I remember rightly, we were limited on how much money we could actually take back to school at the beginning of term. I think it was about £2 per term, which we could draw from a housemaster on a weekly basis, usually a couple of bob a week.

Can you remember more clearly ?

Sorry JR, missed this.

There was definitely a limit, 30/- at the beginning, which may have gone up.
I got it from my father for the first few terms until he realised I was getting paid to be a swab, did newspaper and milk rounds in the holidays, and could therefore fund myself.
I didn't think too much about it at the time.

[ailurophile]

My apologies - I rather 'lit the blue touch paper and then retired' on Saturday! (A family emergency dragged me off for most of the weekend to the PC-free twilight zone of my mother’s house!). I can see I’ve made some of you very cross, and I can appreciate why. But whatever my feelings on the rights and wrongs of somebody else’s behaviour, I still don’t have it in me to point the finger. I have a favourite maxim too Huggermugger, the 'golden rule' of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

I only know the friend in question through the context of meetings at CH: I have no knowledge, beyond what she has told me, of her personal circumstances. I certainly don’t know enough to speculate on how she manages her tax returns, or whether her partner buys shoes for her children, or any of the other details of their personal life. I don’t even know whether she manages to sleep at night! All I know is that they have chosen not to legalise their relationship because to do so would disrupt her children’s education. This information was confided to me in the context of sympathy with my own difficulties; she simply revealed that she could empathise, and that if her own changed circumstances meant that her new partner’s income were to be assessed for fees she too would be unable to afford to keep her children at CH. I can understand that, and I do think that the system is in some part to blame for placing people in these difficult positions.

Who can say how many other CH parents are doing the same? I imagine that even if every case were known and reported it would be impossible for the Foundation to prove fraud. After all, there is a very grey area around what actually constitutes co-habitation; as Huggermugger has pointed out, single parents are entitled to companionship and a sex life. At what point do the ‘rules’ dictate that someone’s new partner becomes bona fide to the extent of taking on financial responsibility for the family?

I'm quite sure that all the Forum members are scrupulously honest in their dealings with the school, as I have always been myself. However, it is easy to say that 'Rules are rules', but a quick look at the recent unseemly MPs expenses debacle shows that one person's interpretation of following the rules can be the next person's definition of fraud! (and personally, I would argue that a rotten system has a lot to be responsible for in that case too).

It is clear from recent posts that there are cases where school staff are alert to the apparent affluence of pupils, and suspect that income is being concealed; but there have also been persuasive arguments made against judging on appearances. If we all take it upon ourselves to report any families who we suspect - or even know - may be bending the rules, I imagine that the situation could quickly degenerate into a McCarthyite witch-hunt. And I for one wouldn't want to go there!

[ailurophile]

Something else I've been meaning to comment on. Dusty wrote;

We, for example, were applying as full fee payers till I saw what the new fees are and and that it worked out over the odds compared to many other boarding schools. So that's £160,000 or so that won't be coming to CH.

Presumably this means that you've decided to send your son to another school Dusty? I'm sorry to hear that if that's the case; I know you really rated CH.

[lonelymom]

Something else I've been meaning to comment on. Dusty wrote;

We, for example, were applying as full fee payers till I saw what the new fees are and and that it worked out over the odds compared to many other boarding schools. So that's £160,000 or so that won't be coming to CH.

Presumably this means that you've decided to send your son to another school Dusty? I'm sorry to hear that if that's the case; I know you really rated CH.

Yes, I kept meaning to pick up on that, and I'm sorry to hear that news too.

[TrueBlue]

Hi JR,

Real money in the old days. If I remember rightly, spening money in the Prep Block Tuck Shop - too young to use the other one - was limited to 1s 2d per week in the mid '60s which bought you 14 penny chews or 28 black jacks.

[TrueBlue]

It would seem to me that it is time for the Counting House to invoke the "Home visit inspection" clause that is included in most means testing systems to ensure that confidence in the system is not undermined by possible fraud by friends of ailurophile.

[dinahcat]

.

At what point do the ‘rules’ dictate that someone’s new partner becomes bona fide to the extent of taking on financial responsibility for the family?

At the point where they move into the family home and accept responsibility for the children in that home.It is a disgrace to defraud the school on these terms simply to improve your standrard of living.People who do this are mocking the people who play by the rules.

[J.R.]

.

At what point do the ‘rules’ dictate that someone’s new partner becomes bona fide to the extent of taking on financial responsibility for the family?

At the point where they move into the family home and accept responsibility for the children in that home.It is a disgrace to defraud the school on these terms simply to improve your standrard of living.People who do this are mocking the people who play by the rules.

The DSS Investigation Branch count more than two nights occupancy in one week as residential as far as benefits are concerned for the claimee.

[ailurophile]

Dinahcat wrote:

At what point do the ‘rules’ dictate that someone’s new partner becomes bona fide to the extent of taking on financial responsibility for the family?

At the point where they move into the family home and accept responsibility for the children in that home.It is a disgrace to defraud the school on these terms simply to improve your standard of living.People who do this are mocking the people who play by the rules.

Dinahcat, in principle I agree wholeheartedly with you! In these circumstances, concealing your changed situation from the Foundation merely to improve your standard of living would indeed be a disgrace, and unfair to those who play by the rules. I would by no means wish to condone such an action. But I think that your statement raises two difficult questions: first, at what point does someone 'move into the family home'? And second, in doing so do they automatically accept responsibility for the children in that home? It is very difficult to establish, even within the law, exactly when that point has been reached. Having never been in this particular situation, I've spent my lunch hour looking into cohabitation on the Internet (didn't want to do this at home, my husband might wonder what on earth I'm up to!). Most of the information I could find on the subject focuses on the financial risks to couples when they separate rather than when they move in together (the disadvantages of the latter may be peculiar to CH parents!). But I did find the following interesting link. http://www.oneplusone.org.uk/marriedornot/Index.htm

This was on the first page:

Married, civil partnered, or not - the legal differences

Many people (61%, according to a recent survey*) mistakenly believe that simply living together can give you the same rights as marriage. They believe that 'common-law marriage' is a recognised legal status. They are wrong.

Others believe that by having a child together they acquire legal rights**, whether married, civil partnered, or not. They too are mistaken.

Only couples who get married or register a civil partnership will acquire legal rights and responsibilities in relation to each other.


This latter point would appear to indicate that only by taking the decision to legitimise their partnership can a couple actually be held accountable for joint financial responsibility towards any children of either partner. If they do not choose to take that step, for whatever reason, it is surely debatable whether the Foundation has the jurisdiction to determine the exact nature of their relationship. Without wishing to play Devil's advocate here, how can anyone prove that your partner is not, for example, a lodger? Or a distantly related MP who needs somewhere to stay while he's up in London?

(And wandering somewhere off the point here, I'm curious about what happens if your ageing granny needs to move into the family home? Does anyone know whether her income would count for the financial assessment?)

Can I just stress again that in no way do I personally wish to condone any attempts to bend the rules or to conceal income in any form. I'm just attempting to show (not very clearly, it would appear) that I believe it is difficult to judge issues in black and white when there are so many of shades of grey involved...

IMHO, the Foundation could go some way to resolving this particular problem by looking at the way in which income is assessed. If, set against income, a proper allowance were made for the necessary expenditure of each adult in a family unit there might be less advantage to be gained from a couple not declaring their relationship! Maybe fairer treatment would be an incentive to more honesty. Just a thought.