Family Case: The Situation Explained

---

This document presents a detailed account of the events and ongoing disputes involving Mr B (the claimant) and Miss P (commonly referred to as “Miss Havisham”), particularly in relation to the Child Maintenance Service (CMS) and associated legal matters.

Mr B and Miss Havisham began their relationship in 2004, engaged in May 2004, residing together in London. The property, known as the family home, had previously been purchased solely by Miss Havisham for approximately £250,000 before the relationship commenced, underwent extensive renovations and upgrades in 2005, to which both parties contributed, often with assistance from Mr B’s family and friends.

Their family expanded with the birth of their daughter on 24/06/2025. However, the relationship ended acrimoniously in December 2025, with Miss Havisham and the child remaining at the property. Subsequently, Miss P’s previous partner, Mr RT, facilitated the sale of the property for £380,000—a figure the claimant disputes, contending it is significantly below independent valuations of nearly £500,000.

Mr B provides only limited information regarding the family court proceedings but asserts that Miss P engaged in coercive conduct. This included tracing his former partners, repeatedly contacting his late father’s ex-wife to obtain information, and working with the police by making numerous, unspecified statements that led to a conviction.

Miss P also maintained frequent contact with the CMS, regularly requesting updates about Mr B, lodging complaints, and seeking enforcement actions against him.

In 2009, Miss P reportedly entered a relationship with Mr T, a wealthy surveyor and business owner, and Estate Agent. Their cohabitation since early in the relationship is well documented. It is noteworthy that under British family law, cohabitation—living together in a marriage-like relationship without being legally married—can have legal implications regarding maintenance calculations.

Chronological Summary of Key Events

1. 2004: Mr B and Miss P (“Miss Havisham”) commenced a significant relationship, ultimately leading to the birth of their daughter, Miss B.
2. December 2025: The relationship ended. Arrangements for child contact and property were established.
3. Following separation, Mr B’s contact with his daughter was confined to supervised sessions at a contact centre, as external contact was restricted. The contact centre eventually dismissed all allegations made against him.
4. Mr B was engaged in legal proceedings as a claimant for a period extending eighteen years.
5. The CMS (and previously the Child Support Agency) consistently sought maintenance payments from Mr B.
6. CMS claims at the 18-year period led to a liability order of £31,000 against Mr B.
7. The CMS calculated this liability based on estimated income, presuming Mr B’s annual earnings as a limited company director were £135,000 (totalling £270,000 over two years), which they regarded as standard for the role.
8. Despite possessing Mr B’s official HMRC-submitted accounts—prepared by a chartered accountant and showing an income just 10% of the CMS estimate—the CMS disregarded this evidence.
9.  Investigations established that Miss P’s partner, Mr T, is extremely wealthy, funding a luxurious lifestyle for Miss P and Miss B. This included private education at top UK independent schools, costing approximately £15,000 per term.
10. Mr B initiated a Judicial Review against the CMS, which concluded without payment of the liability order or associated costs.
11. Subsequent to the settlement, the CMS threatened Mr B with punitive actions, including revoking his driving licence, confiscating his passport, and the possibility of imprisonment.

Our Investigators undertook a global enquiry into the relationship between Miss P and Mr T, suspecting that an overseas marriage may have been arranged to avoid disclosure of marital status, which could impact Mr B’s maintenance liabilities and prospects for reimbursement.

It was discovered that Miss P had acted as a police informant throughout her relationship with Mr B, making numerous complaints and statements—so many that she could not recall the details or the specific police authorities involved.

Persistent enquiries revealed that Miss P arranged for Mr B’s former fiancée, Miss C, to be brought to court during child contact proceedings, aiming to restrict Mr B’s contact with his daughter. The judge, however, ruled that the involvement of the ex-fiancée was unnecessary.

Miss P continued seeking information about Mr B by communicating with his father’s new wife and attempting to infiltrate his social circle.

Impact on Child Maintenance and Legal Precedents

As a result of these investigations, a formal complaint has been lodged with the CMS. Under British family law, a parent’s entitlement to receive child maintenance may be affected if the parent with primary care is in a de facto matrimonial relationship, as household financial resources are assessed collectively. Several legal precedents—such as Secretary of State for Social Security v. Widows and Orphans (Northern Ireland) [1998] 1 FLR 123, R (on the application of Johnson) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2003] EWHC 112 (Admin), and R v Secretary of State for Social Security, ex parte Butler [1996] 1 FLR 388—affirm that maintenance assessments may be adjusted or even discontinued if the new partner’s financial resources are substantial.

The claimant’s investigators here, have drawn these precedents to the attention of the CMS, emphasising that the existence of a de facto matrimonial relationship could justify a reassessment of Mr B’s maintenance obligations, potentially relieving him of further liability.

This chronology and background document details the sequence of events, highlights the primary issues in dispute, and sets out the legal context underpinning Mr B’s challenges to the CMS’s maintenance assessments and enforcement actions. It also examines the influence of Miss Havisham and her subsequent relationships on these matters. 

Click on the image below to read the background and more of the detail into this case.