Is CSA1 an exact science? (if so where can I get a copy of the formula) -merged-

kelloggs36

The point is mothballed, you currently don't live with your girlfriend, and you are about to claim JSA, so you would qualify for legal aid. If you move in with her, you won't as your household income would be too high - all Loopy was asking was which situation are you in?

I made the comment I made earlier because it seems a rather strange decision to be in so much debt and then to have more children. The most sensible thing to do would be to sort out the mess first and THEN have another child. Nobody is suggesting you shouldn't have them, but you seem to be trying to avoid all financial responsibility for the ones you already have, yet you go on to have more?????

Are you on a DEO at the moment or not? I was not clear from your post about it. If so, then your employer cannot be taking more than you must be left with for protected income - if they are then they are acting illegally and must refund you. If not, then why are you making any payments - you will have sent your payslips to the CSA for them to see that your income has changed - all they will be doing is clocking up arrears.

mothballed

kelloggs36 wrote: »

The point is mothballed, you currently don't live with your girlfriend, and you are about to claim JSA, so you would qualify for legal aid. If you move in with her, you won't as your household income would be too high - all Loopy was asking was which situation are you in?

We dont live together.

kelloggs36 wrote: »

I made the comment I made earlier because it seems a rather strange decision to be in so much debt and then to have more children. The most sensible thing to do would be to sort out the mess first and THEN have another child.

It wasnt planned to be as soon as this. lets say biolocical clock has more to do with it

kelloggs36 wrote: »

Nobody is suggesting you shouldn't have them, but you seem to be trying to avoid all financial responsibility for the ones you already have, yet you go on to have more?????

I think there is a large degree of assumption being made here. And by others on this forum who have applauded you in making that statement.

I am not trying to avoid financial responsibility for my children. I have paid CSA well above and beyond the maxumim prescribed limits set by law. Hitherto all expert opinion I have sought and presented the facts to are uninimous in that position. There are no grounds for any claim I am trying to avoid financial responsibility for my children.

If what your saying is true I can simply move to France. On receipt of a REMO application I can documentarily prove to the Cour de cassation that parent-child separation was imposed on us and there is no maintenance liability at all under French law. Child maintenence is only for fathers who leave their children mutually or under their own will. Forced child maintenance is not available for PWC's whose circumstances are self-inflicted. I can move there by tonight if I wanted to plus take my JSA with me and that would lawfully put the CSA case to bed.

kelloggs36 wrote: »

Are you on a DEO at the moment or not? I was not clear from your post about it. If so, then your employer cannot be taking more than you must be left with for protected income - if they are then they are acting illegally and must refund you. If not, then why are you making any payments

Yes its a DEO. its the arears that puts me on an income that is below the governments poverty threshold. Apprently the threshold doesnt count when it comes to child support.

kelloggs36 wrote: »

you will have sent your payslips to the CSA for them to see that your income has changed - all they will be doing is clocking up arrears.

Done many times. All I get back is I must contact this department and contact that department. MP is the next stop and with yoiur help I now appear to have a very watertight case.

mothballed

You have hit the nail right on the head. Payslips have been going to the CSA (which I am now learning the CSA can independently check my earnings on NINO withoug receiving anyway). OTOH, It went something like this...

1st excuse. Contact another department on 0845.
2nd excuse. Your payslips are not up to date
3rd excuse. I am outside the allotted time limit
5th excuse. The CSA cannot make reductions retrospecrtively/backdate a correction
6th excuse. You need to speak to this person or that person/we didnt receive your letter
7th excuse. I must make an appeal
8th excuse. ... within 30 days of the decision
9th excuse. You are out of time to appeal - its the law.
10th excuse. It has been passed to the enforcements section.

Does anyone else relate to this?

Zara33

mothballed wrote: »

I quite agree. I understand benefit fraud carries a custodial sentence and who else will social services go to for rehousing my children?

Ex tells the CSA she & kids live alone. Her b/f works as a mobile car mechanic (van outside house every night) and drinks in the pub telling everyone he is a mechanic and his adverts give her address of business. I went to a jobcentre plus to make enqiries on JSA and lookiee what I see? her boyfriend sitting in the signing-on queue.

This is for another day. I really need CSA cleared up first.

I know your not really discussing this topic atm but most benefit fraud cases don't end up in prison.

mothballed

I am still fairly new on this forum and it's provided some valuable information during the case-building process. Some commentators on this forum have made statements that an NRP is trying to avoid his obligations as a parent and posted comments such as these. Examples:

kelloggs36 wrote: »

, why are you so against paying any child support?

Loopy_Girl wrote: »

It's a bit like Mothballed trying to work out the least amount of hours to work to not pay CSA.

No background to my case has been given in this forum, this confirms anyone who is paying (or not paying) CSA is automatically deemed to be someone actively trying to exclude himself from paying child maintenance. I have also faced a lot of negativity by way of presumptuous statements which has no foundation while I am already in possession of facts proving the contrary. Examples:

Zara33 wrote: »

I think it would take a lot more than this for Social services to remove your kids.

Loopy_Girl wrote: »

despite you saying you don't have a pot to p!ss in, you are still able to pay for internet access it would appear.

This attitude indicates there is a taboo in being an NRP - regardless whether or not that status is of his own choosing. There is also consensus an NRP who has been forcibly excluded from his own children has to give up his right to rebuild a normal family life. Example:

kelloggs36 wrote: »

If you are in such huge debt, why are you having a baby? Or is it going to be all the financial responsibility of your new partner?

I am getting the impression the NRP is a de-facto villian in the world of CSA and the PWC is the victim. Is this an accurate perception, or are the above statements just blindly posted without considering the facts?

Lil2002

Actually, all comments that you have quoted are addresed specifically to you and your situation.. I see no generalisations about NRP's or PWC's, except in your post here.

Loopy_Girl

mothballed wrote: »

I earned a lot more than she does. its irrelant.



Your not all there are you?

It's earnt and irrelavant

and it's also you're not your.

You know you seem to slipping in and out out spelling and grammatical errors...bit like the PM you sent and signed 'hugz and kisses'...what a very strange way for a man to end a private mail...some would say that is a female way of writing....dearie me, what could I be angling at


clippity clops are getting louder:D

Loopy_Girl

mothballed wrote: »

Unless you are posting using two names - the other is Loopy Lass - I have never said you are wrong. You have edited my post ina quotation and joined two separate comments from the post to make a different meaning.

Im not sure what you are trying to do.

When did Loopy Lass start posting on here? I've never seen her...and there is a Loopy Lass on this forum

Loopy_Girl

It just really proves that you are forgetting what lies you are telling and people are questioning you.

De-facto villain eh? Impressive considering you don't know the difference between you're and your:rolleyes:

hamstercheeks_2

mothballed wrote: »

I am getting the impression the NRP is a de-facto villian in the world of CSA and the PWC is the victim. Is this an accurate perception, or are the above statements just blindly posted without considering the facts?

yes this is a general perception I would totally agree