Child Maintenance (CSA) questions (merged)

jezbo

nearlyrich wrote:

Why should the taxpayer support your dependants it's your responsilbility?

Is that a question to me ? If so I dont understand why you think the taxpayer is paying if I pay my ex directly.

nearlyrich

jezbo wrote:

Is that a question to me ? If so I dont understand why you think the taxpayer is paying if I pay my ex directly.

I am not intending to offend here just trying to put another side of the situation. If you have children you are responsible for them, (and to be fair it seems that you are paying a lot of maintenance for your 2 children, I never got more than £100 for 2 per month so I worked fulltime to support them.)

Reading your question " why should the government get most of it", to me that sounds like you are saying the state should pay benefit to your ex and that you should top it up with as little as you can get away with.

If you think it's OK to let the taxpayer pick up the tab because you have moved on and taken on another family them my question to you is why should the taxpayer pick up the bill?


If you were still with your ex as a family you would be paying most of your earnings into the family "pot" and you wouldn't expect the benefits system to pay out even more.

Spendless

jezbo wrote:

Could any PWC here please tell why as much as £173 a week coud possibly be needed to bring up 2 children ? I just can't see it, but it may help to understand if someone can explain why. Food maybe £50pw, clothes £15 (on average), travel costs to school £10, a half share of putting a roof over their head maybe £30. After that I'm struggling. And why should I pay all food/clothes/travel costs when the PWC is expected to contribute none?

Well I'm only a parent of 2 not a PWC, but I don't think maintainance is worked out this way. I think it was calley who did a very good post explaining how it is worked out. However I'm aware of someone who is about to foster and she will receive around £112 a week for a teenager. When I did a google search I found that the amount for fostering went up as child grew older. My 2 def cost me more than £173 a week in lost earnings. With a boy and a girl I need a 3 bedroomed house (or would when they were older). I need to dress them, feed them, there's the cost of the ulitities they use, lights/heating on more during day cos I'm at home, that's before we start on them using more electricity cos of their playstations/Pcs. You have more furniture to buy, more beds/wadrobes/storage for toys etc dining table big enough for all of you. And then we come to activities, swimming lessons,nurseries,playgroups, football practice,gym clubs,non-uniform day at school and so on.
BTW does your ex work or not-I'm not sure by your posts?

pandas66

jezbo wrote:

Could any PWC here please tell why as much as £173 a week coud possibly be needed to bring up 2 children ? I just can't see it, but it may help to understand if someone can explain why. Food maybe £50pw, clothes £15 (on average), travel costs to school £10, a half share of putting a roof over their head maybe £30. After that I'm struggling. And why should I pay all food/clothes/travel costs when the PWC is expected to contribute none?

Luckily for PWC, its based on facts like income not fiction like how much you say the food bill should be.
Also do you pay towards her looking after the girls whilst you can't put time in, have you calculated that? 365 days less 70/80 still leaves 285 which is 75% of their time. It baffles me and forever will is how 1st family is regarded as a leech, 2nd family being the superior.

jezbo

I'm quite willing to have the girls live here more. It's just not practical. Even the weekends I do have them, their mum often requests they stay because that's the only weekend their grandma can visit, etc (loads of reasons).

elisebutt65

Dear God!!!!

I think I'm going to have to ask for a reassessment. ATM I get £23/week for my eldest(10) and his dad takes home over £250/wk, and nothing for my youngest(5) - his dad is registered blind so apparently his income is classed as nil :mad: (despite earning £23,000 per annum)

I hate to fight for the money I do get, and I do get about a fiver extra to pay off arrears - whoopee doo!!

jezbo

nearlyrich wrote:

I am not intending to offend here just trying to put another side of the situation. If you have children you are responsible for them, (and to be fair it seems that you are paying a lot of maintenance for your 2 children, I never got more than £100 for 2 per month so I worked fulltime to support them.)

Reading your question " why should the government get most of it", to me that sounds like you are saying the state should pay benefit to your ex and that you should top it up with as little as you can get away with.

If you think it's OK to let the taxpayer pick up the tab because you have moved on and taken on another family them my question to you is why should the taxpayer pick up the bill?


If you were still with your ex as a family you would be paying most of your earnings into the family "pot" and you wouldn't expect the benefits system to pay out even more.

I still don't understand you. She IS claiming benefits as far as I know. If she is claiming benefits too because she does not work that's her fault, not mine. There is no reduction in my maintenance payments because of her earnings.

I'm not expectng the tax payer to contribute more, I'm expecting HER to. The way things are she doesn't have to, because of the maintenance payments + benefits + earnings from part time work. I think she has it quite cushy.

I mean: why should she even try to work more than 16 hours a week (even though she can) if it means she'll lose out on benefits paid by the taxpayer and a full maintenance payment from me? There's no incentive there. The system is wrong. It's just one of the reasons why this country is in such a mess, it makes it too easy to cheat the hardworking taxpayer : that's everyone not just me.

calleyw

jezbo wrote:

Well, I'm going to try this anyway. I did get through to the CSA and they said since we settle the payments privately then paying into separate accounts for my ex, and the children, would not matter to them. So I'll pay my ex the basic maintenance of £128 per WEEK, and pay the rest into accounts for the kids directly. IF she complains to the CSA they make take no action since they should see I have the kid's (rather than their mum's) interests at heart, which SHOULD be their main concern.

I would tread very carefully on this one if I was you.

My husband got his fingers burnt and learnt the hard way. So he pays via the CSA now.

Reason being is that he use to pay his ex directly. She decided to told the CSA she was not getting the the back pay which was a outright lie. Then it was up to him to get bank statements going back a couple of years. And being tardy had lost a few so had to get duplicates luckily at no extra cost to himself to prove he has been paying that he should have been paying which included.

She was not expected to prove that he had not by showing her bank statements. But that is another story.

If you ex felt like it she could say you are only paying £128 and no more even if it is going direct in to other accounts. And how do you prove you have. You have the money going out to of an account. But what if she denys all knowledge of the girls bank accounts. Is it worth the hassle and stress.

Up the paddle without a creek you will be. And you said "May take no action" that is a hell of difference to we will NOT take action.

It is best to play it clean and fair no matter how unfair you feel it is. I do think you need to appeal as that is big jump and has been said a lot of money even with out having them as often there. Granted child do cost money. But if other people on £35K a year where only paying £200 odd a month and not having them to stay at all. There has to be something wrong with it.

But as I said before your circumstances have to be very special to get a variance. And personally I just don't believe that your cirumstances are special enough to warrant this. The state of your marriage or the fact that your wife will divorce you because she does not get to go home 4 times a year to see her family just will not wash with the CSA. That is part of a lifestyle choice and if you can't afford then the words tough come to mind.

You current wife must have know you had other children so it was no surprise you had to pay the CSA money. It was not to me. I knew but it took awhile to have my eyes opened to the situation. There is nothing I can do. My husband pays and that is that now.

The CSA core is a computer system and with a variance I believe a human being looks at it. But they have there guidelines and that is that.

I know I may be looking on the gloomy side but all I can say is I have been there worn the T-shirt. And in the end it is just not worth the hassle and the fight as it just winds you up and makes you unhappy.

Yours


Calley

jezbo

OK cheers Calley. I may talk it over with my ex anyway, she may agree that paying into extra accounts for the girl's future is a good idea, as long as she sets up and controls those accounts probably. But I want the girls to know they are there for their future too (and also for extra things like clubs, trips etc now). I don't think that's unreasonable.

calleyw

jezbo wrote:

I still don't understand you. She IS claiming benefits as far as I know. If she is claiming benefits too because she does not work that's her fault, not mine. There is no reduction in my maintenance payments because of her earnings.

I'm not expectng the tax payer to contribute more, I'm expecting HER to. The way things are she doesn't have to, because of the maintenance payments + benefits + earnings from part time work. I think she has it quite cushy.

As I said before any PWC claiming the following: Income Support, Income based Jobseeker’s Allowance,Working Tax Credit will have zero rated income.

So even if your ex was working full time and was earning less than £15K ish she would still have zero rated income. So still that would make no difference to what you pay.

As it is based on what they claim is needed in maintenance and what you earn. The more you earn the more it cost in maintenance.

Yours


Calley