Unofficial Christ's Hospital Forum

Believe me, you're not the first person to tell me I'm naive, and you probably won't be the last

I've had this conversation about holidays with someone else on the forum, so I agree with you there. My daughter is lucky enough to be being taken on a 10-day caravan holiday to Great Yarmouth in the summer hols! All paid for by the other parent, so just some spends needed from me And it's a damn-site more than the rest of us are going to be getting this year

And I can't see how it is possible for the average person to 'massage the figures to lower your income' because your wages are your wages, your outgoings are your outgoings - supplying a P60 and photocopies of outgoings surely do away with any 'massaging'. Apart from those with 2nd homes etc who, apparently, can hide the income.

Without wanting to be too controversial, divorced parents can easily hide the reality. Put it this way, i remember a lad whose mother was declared as a single mum and lived in a modest house and had a modest income. All legit.

Absent Dad was a millionaire - did not declare his income.

QED - Son got cheap education and nice holidays, expensive gear .....

Great lad - enjoyed CH and did well. So did his parents - great education for a snip of what it would have cost if Dad had paid for him to go to Charterhouse instead.

That's outrageous. I have some sympathy with new partners having to be counted in as supporting the family, but for a natural parent's income not to be included (unless estranged) is pure fraud.

slightly - I used to work with someone whose daughter was a single mother, housed by the council, with full benefits etc. The child's father was a drug baron, living in exile in Spain, but who reguarly provided for both the child and his ex-partner. Result - she had a very nice lifestyle, including a sports car, and several foreign holidays a year (don't know why he didn't buy her a house as well). Someone reported her to the benefits agency but she just told them her parents helped her out a lot.

I may be speaking out of turn here (I know from experience that parents hate childless people criticising what kids do), but - well - I'll take my chances . I can appreciate that children's sports kit goes astray in the laundry from time to time, but looking at the last few posts, it seems to be taken for granted that children will "lose" stuff from time to time. I know kids will be kids, but given how much people are complaining about the price of the sports kit, isn't it a bit rich to let children away with not taking responsibility for expensive items?

Onewestguncopse wrote:

Your shock is touching but naive! I would guess that a large minority of income forms are subject to creative accounting. It is so obvious when you talk to the children about holidays, cars ....

In answer to your point about how CH would uncover them - we can't. So much is based on trust and honesty. Let me put it this way - if an accountant told you how to massage the figures to lower your income and hence your fees - how many people can truly say they would not be tempted.

These posts pretty much confirm what I've been saying is the problem all along; there are too many anomalies and loopholes in the assessment system!! And it's the honest parents who are being hit hardest; you can bet your life it won't be those who are exploiting the system who are forced to withdraw their children from the school. No, it'll be married couples who don't have an absent parent to chip in (and yes, before you all shout, I'm aware that this isn't the case for every single parent either), and the employed whose P60s show every penny they earn. Lonelymom, don't forget that the self-employed do not get wage slips and P60s, and there's a whole industry out there devoted to helping them avoid tax liability! All perfectly legitimate no doubt, but it makes a nonsense of the Foundation's claim that it is 'fair' to assess the employed and self-employed on the same terms.

I'm somewhat surprised that no-one has jumped in to ask Onewestguncopse whether the staff actually report 'obvious' cases of dishonesty to the Counting House?

ailurophile wrote:Onewestguncopse wrote:

Your shock is touching but naive! I would guess that a large minority of income forms are subject to creative accounting. It is so obvious when you talk to the children about holidays, cars ....

In answer to your point about how CH would uncover them - we can't. So much is based on trust and honesty. Let me put it this way - if an accountant told you how to massage the figures to lower your income and hence your fees - how many people can truly say they would not be tempted.

These posts pretty much confirm what I've been saying is the problem all along; there are too many anomalies and loopholes in the assessment system!! And it's the honest parents who are being hit hardest; you can bet your life it won't be those who are exploiting the system who are forced to withdraw their children from the school. No, it'll be married couples who don't have an absent parent to chip in (and yes, before you all shout, I'm aware that this isn't the case for every single parent either), and the employed whose P60s show every penny they earn. Lonelymom, don't forget that the self-employed do not get wage slips and P60s, and there's a whole industry out there devoted to helping them avoid tax liability! All perfectly legitimate no doubt, but it makes a nonsense of the Foundation's claim that it is 'fair' to assess the employed and self-employed on the same terms.

I'm somewhat surprised that no-one has jumped in to ask Onewestguncopse whether the staff actually report 'obvious' cases of dishonesty to the Counting House?

Is the dishonesty of the parents the fault of the child though?

Although having said that it appears from reading this thread that children are having to leave because parents cannot afford the increases in fees which again is not the fault of the child.

This whole married v living together thing is not unique to CH. We were the only "traditional" family set up amongst my older daughter's set of university friends and in terms of "real" income were by no means the richest.

No prizes for guessing who had to pay the most though!

Successive governments, both blue and red, have made marriage a dirty word and in material terms a positive disadvantage.

It's hard to say if I would be tempted if an accountant showed me how.......there is only me and my salary (P60 every year) and my mortgage statement.....I can't hide what I don't have......actually, I don't understand the mentality of people who do try and cheat the system because surely if you can afford to pay, you pay because you don't begrudge your children their school fees.....but maybe that is because I am not in a situation where I have an accountant who can advise me how to 'hide' my money....

I've said before that perhaps CH should get the solicitors to verfiy evidence and not just signatures if they suspect there is wide spread dishonesty.

again sorry.

One of my colleagues, (a single Mum whose ex didn't even bother to go and see his daughter on Father's Day when she had come back from Uni specially) took a prospective tenant round to a couple of flats. This woman claimed to be a single Mum and would be claiming Housing Benefit for a two-roomed flat for her and her son, and AND the Council would be paying her deposit.

Turned out she had just come back from 4 days in Ibiza and is off to Turkey next week, son lives with his Dad and goes to school 20 miles away. And she didn't like the flat, 2nd floor and bedrooms (both doubles) were too small.

When my colleague phoned the woman at the Council (who we know quite well), she told her we shouldn't touch her with a bargepole. She clearly could say no more on the phone so we are waiting for her to come in with the goss'

A strange anomoly: in the days of student grants, the income of a step parent did not count towards the parental contribution. My husband was a widower with 2 daughters: his sister was married with 2 adopted children, yet her income counted and mine (declared) did not. I won't say we were laughing all the way to the bank, but it sure did help.

Eagerdad wrote

Independent Education is our choice,even taking into account unique funding arrangements at CH when your child attends an Independent School you have to review every year if you can afford it. We must remember 93% of children are educated in State Schools.

It’s true that independent education is a choice. But as I’ve said elsewhere on this thread, CH is unique in that it makes that choice available specifically to those who cannot afford it! I don’t believe that this is a decision which any responsible parent would make without first being at least reasonably confident that they would receive sufficient continuing support to keep their child at the school for the expected seven years of secondary education, or at the very least until GCSE. I don’t think you should underestimate the impact on a child of changing schools mid-stream.

We certainly did not anticipate having to ‘review’ our children’s continuing CH education every year: this is their future for heaven’s sake, it’s not like deciding whether or not you can afford a holiday!

Let’s not forget that the ‘choice’ depends as much on the school as on the families applying to it; pupils are selected on the basis of need, and I think it deplorable that having made that selection the Foundation are subsequently prepared to move the goalposts with no apparent accountability for the resulting impact on the children in their care.

Sending your children to CH is a choice; for many families, sadly, there is little ‘choice’ involved in the decision to withdraw them.

And back to the most recent topic... In response to Onewestguncopse's example of the divorced millionaire dad, Jo wrote:

That's outrageous. I have some sympathy with new partners having to be counted in as supporting the family, but for a natural parent's income not to be included (unless estranged) is pure fraud.

Well I may be very much mistaken, but I have always believed that the income of a divorced or separated partner would not be included for CH financial assessment. If you check out the Financial Contributions link on the school website it states that they take into account "All earned income excluding tax and NI of the parent/s, step parent/s, common law spouse or partners who form a family unit". Another rather grey area, this; but surely by the same token that a partner who moves into the home apparently should become fiscally responsible for the children, presumably a parent who has moved out of the home will not be!

Some of the regular posters on this thread are divorced, maybe they can confirm whether an absent parent's income is included for fee calculation?

YadaYada wrote: I've said before that perhaps CH should get the solicitors to verfiy evidence and not just signatures if they suspect there is wide spread dishonesty.

I've been doing that anyway, in fact, I thought I had to! I take everything with me (forms, original copies of mortgage statement, water rates, CTax etc, and photocopies of everything) to the solicitors, she looks through it all, witnesses our signatures, then puts the fee in her pocket!

ailurophile wrote:
It’s true that independent education is a choice. But as I’ve said elsewhere on this thread, CH is unique in that it makes that choice available specifically to those who cannot afford it!

Hi

May I ask whether you would still want your children to attend the school, and whether they would agree to attend, if it were only about the quality of education and the affordable cost?

To elucidate: if costs were cut by offering a more spartan existance (which won't happen, and regulatory bodies wouldn't permit to happen) would you still want to enrol your children?

Best wishes

Caroline

ailurophile wrote: Well I may be very much mistaken, but I have always believed that the income of a divorced or separated partner would not be included for CH financial assessment. If you check out the Financial Contributions link on the school website it states that they take into account "All earned income excluding tax and NI of the parent/s, step parent/s, common law spouse or partners who form a family unit". Another rather grey area, this; but surely by the same token that a partner who moves into the home apparently should become fiscally responsible for the children, presumably a parent who has moved out of the home will not be!

Some of the regular posters on this thread are divorced, maybe they can confirm whether an absent parent's income is included for fee calculation?

I sincerely hope that this is NOT the case! If it is, it opens the floodgates for parents to claim they are separated even if they aren't, which is ridiculous! I thought there was a section on the financial form to include maintenance payments? I'm not divorced, and don't have any plans to be anytime soon, by the way.

In reply to Caroline's question, yes - I would and I did. And I would applaud the idea of my grandchildren being educated at CH, but that is not a matter for me to decide. I am well aware that today's pupils seem to lead a more materialistically comfortable way of life at CH than my children did; their life at CH was in turn more comfortable than my own. I don't think our spartan existence at Hertford was necessarily a bad thing - it taught us values which are not so prevalent today. But the world has moved on since then, and expectations are different. There is a huge difference between (a) not missing what you never had and (b) being asked to go without something which you have always regarded as the norm. It is fine in theory for me, as an adult, to feel that the advantages of a first-class education are more worthwhile than the external trappings of daily life, but that is perhaps a view which children (still developing in maturity) would be unlikely to agree with, especially if they come from comparatively comfortable homes. There is more to education than achievement in academic, cultural, sporting fields. There is also the whole business to learning to live with 'all sorts and conditions of men', and to respect others. I would like to think that it is the underlying 'ethos' that makes CH different from many other schools, and that the values taught there have not changed too much over the centuries.

In reply to Caroline's question, also, yes.

The opportunities offered by CH to my son will give him so much - not just in the academic sense but in confidence, self belief and socially too....so, yes, yes, yes......he is used to roughing it a bit as it is.

FJ said it all better tha I could so I'll leave it there.