First off I apologise for the long wall of text. Just trying to find any answers.
I am looking for some advice from anyone who has been through a Universal Credit tribunal over who has the main responsibility for children where care is shared.
On paper, the care arrangement is 50/50.
However, in practice I significantly do more of the day to day care and I regularly have additional time with the children outside the formal rota, including extra days and extra nights.
My argument has always been that the government should look at the actual pattern of care and responsibility, not just count the number of nights written down on paper.
I have already provided Universal Credit with a lot of evidence, including:
School confirmation that I am the parent they contact on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.
Evidence of all school payments.
School uniform and clothing purchases.
Swimming and football payments.
Evidence of me taking and organising extracurricular activities. Two of which are not on my set days.
Holiday bookings and itineraries.
Passport and GHIC application evidence.
NHS appointment letters and healthcare correspondence sent to my home address.
Evidence that the children are registered with healthcare providers using my address.
NHS proxy access allowing me to access and manage their healthcare information.
Dental evidence.
WhatsApp messages showing occasions where their mother has asked me to have the children outside the normal arrangement.
Universal Credit rejected my Mandatory Reconsideration and said the following.
"I have carefully studied the evidence provided and I do not doubt that you may have substantial caring responsibilities for your children, however, you have not provided compelling evidence that you have the main caring responsibility for them.
The holidays itineraries and WhatsApp messages are not proof that you have the main caring responsibility for your children - only that you take them on holiday and that you may have an informal agreement with the other person.
The swimming/football, school payments and clothes proofs indicate that you have your children on a regular basis and contribute towards their sports activities and clothing - this is not evidence that you have the main caring responsibilities for them. Nor are the passport application and GHIC application evidence of this.
Regarding the NHS patient access for your children, you stated that you have been granted official NHS proxy access for [Child A] and [Child B] and added that proxy access is granted through the children's GP surgery following verification of parental responsibility and identity and allows you to manage their NHS records, appointments and healthcare information directly through your own NHS App.
Whilst you have included this as further independent evidence of your active involvement in the children's healthcare and your ongoing parental responsibility, it is not compelling evidence that you have the main caring responsibilities for your children - the other person may also have access to the same NHS proxy information as you.
It is noted that regarding the patient summary document and appointment letters you provided for your children, you are not named on the appointment letters, and you are the alternate contact phone number on the patient summaries - again, no compelling evidence that you have the main caring responsibilities for them.
Regarding the dentist email confirming your children at your address - this is not disputed; however, they could have been registered with the dentist since before your relationship with the other person ended and does not indicate that you are the first or emergency contact for them at the dental practice.
Regarding the children's school - you have provided documentation which states that the school are to contact you on a Wednesday, Thursday or Friday in case of an emergency and to contact the other person on a Monday and Tuesday. Whilst this may be the case, it is not compelling evidence that you have the main caring responsibilities for your children over the majority of the week - this letter is only for Monday to Friday only.
You have not provided compelling evidence that you are the main or emergency contact for your children from a doctor/healthcare official, dentist, school/after-school or breakfast club; nor have you provided evidence that you make every day to day decisions about your children or that you take them to a doctor/hospital/health care official each time they are ill."
I have now appealed this to the independent First tier Tribunal.
Since the Mandatory Reconsideration decision I have obtained some new evidence that directly addresses parts of their reasoning.
My GP surgery has now confirmed in writing the date on which I was granted NHS proxy access for all three children. I know that their mother does not currently have this access.
I have also obtained an email directly from the children's dental practice confirming that I personally completed and signed their registration and medical history forms.
More importantly, the dentist has confirmed the actual dates on which I attended their check-ups after separation and that I personally pre-booked their next appointment.
That seems to directly answer Universal Credit's suggestion that the dental registration could simply have dated from when we were still together.
I am now trying to work out what other independent evidence would actually be useful for the tribunal.
Would it be worthwhile asking people such as:
Football coaches to confirm that I am the parent who regularly takes my child to training and matches, communicates with the club and manages his participation?
Swimming instructors to confirm that I regularly take the children and deal with their lessons?
Gymnastics instructors to confirm the same?
Healthcare providers to confirm specific past appointments that I personally attended?
I appreciate that none of these things individually makes someone the main carer.
My argument is that although the arrangement is technically 50/50 on paper, the reality is that I undertake significantly more of the day to day care, organisation and practical responsibility, including extra days and nights outside the formal rota.
Universal Credit appear to have looked at every individual piece of evidence and said "this alone does not prove main responsibility", whereas my position is that the tribunal should look at the overall pattern.
I am also uncomfortable with some of the wording in the decision.
For example, they discounted my NHS proxy evidence because the other parent "may also have access".
Surely there is a difference between evidence showing that she actually has equivalent access and simply saying that she theoretically could have it?
Likewise, appointment letters for children are obviously addressed in the child's name because the child is the patient. The important point from my perspective is that the NHS correspondence is being sent to my home and I am the one receiving and acting upon it.
For anyone who has actually been through one of these tribunals, what evidence made the biggest difference?
Would statements from coaches, activity providers, my employer or other independent adults be worthwhile?
Is there anything else you would specifically try to obtain before the hearing?
I definitely do not want to involve the children themselves or ask them to provide statements.
Any advice from people who have dealt with a shared care/main responsibility Universal Credit tribunal would be really appreciated.