Child Maintenance (CSA) questions (merged)

hobo28

madmagic wrote:

So, let me get this right

Say hubbie brings home £1000 a month after tax, he is allowed 20 o/o for our children, then he has to pay 15 o/o to ex for child from 1st marriage. Plus older child could go to CSA for money?

£1000- 20 o/o = £200
£800 * 15 o/o = £120

So we have £880 left to pay all bills- but less than this if eldest goes to CSA.
Plus Tax credit people class income as £1000 a month because maintenance pymts don`t matter.

So thats a fair system?

Hubbies` ex left him for someone else- he had to pay her out-and taken on joint debts.

Someone correct me if I am wrong but your hubbie has 2 children with same ex. Eldest is going to Uni correct? If so then he no longer has to pay anything. So as far as CSA is concerned, he pays 15% of net income minus any days he regularly has child for. So 1 night per week means a reduction of 1/7th.

So using your example of £1000, he would be liable for 15% (ie. £150 per month).

madmagic_2

He will be liable for 15 o/o as only 1 `child` to pay maintenace for. But as we have two children-he is allowed to keep the 1st 20 % of his income to keep these children.

So £1000 minus 20 % = £800

£800 x 15 % = £120 a month

£1000 - £120 = £880 a month income

However the tax credit people do not take maintenace into account- so they work out that we have an income of £1000.

On the other hand his ex does not have to use the £120 a month as income, so says for example she has a household income of £1000, she would get the same tax credit although she has an extra £120 of income from maintenance.

madmagic_2

So all in all the result of this will mean- if the CSA take on her case- which she says they have.
Hubbie will have to increase the amount of maintenace he pays for youngest child-which will in turn mean, he is unable to give as much financil help to the older child.

Ex is happy with this as all she see`s is how much money she will have in her pocket, even if these means eldest child will end up in more debt as a result.

bigun_3

Sorry to butt in but did i read it correctly
that if the children live with the mother and the husband moves in with someone else thier income is not taken into account.
The reason for checking on this is that my partners ex has said that if he moves in with me or anyone else for that matter then she wants more money off him.We have been asking the csa if this was the case but as usual no reply.

Scarlett1

bigun wrote:

Sorry to butt in but did i read it correctly
that if the children live with the mother and the husband moves in with someone else thier income is not taken into account.
The reason for checking on this is that my partners ex has said that if he moves in with me or anyone else for that matter then she wants more money off him.We have been asking the csa if this was the case but as usual no reply.

you're income has nothing to do with the ex or the CSA

Scarlett1

madmagic I would sit back and do nothing, I doubt the ex can get more money out of you're partner because she isnt on benefits so isnt a priority, and they probably wont deal with her anyways cause there is a court order in place.

I would try and not get stressed about it, I recon the ex is just trying to find a way of recovering some of the money that she will be losing.

bigun_3

Thanks for that its a great help

urban_spirit

I'm sorry thats incorrect. Partners income is used in the caculation of an assessment even though its not included in net income.

If the initial assessment was before 3rd March 2003 - see below extracts from a booklet on their website:

5.4 Partner's income
The income of any partner living with the parent is
excluded from the calculation of net income. However, a
partner’s income can affect the allowance for children in
exempt income (see section 6.2 on page 51) and can be
taken into account in the first protected income calculation
(see section 7.5 on page 70). Non-resident parents are not
required to disclose their partner’s income, but if they do
not, an interim maintenance assessment may be
imposed.

calleyw

urban_spirit wrote:

I'm sorry thats incorrect. Partners income is used in the caculation of an assessment even though its not included in net income.

If the initial assessment was before 3rd March 2003 - see below extracts from a booklet on their website:

5.4 Partner's income
The income of any partner living with the parent is
excluded from the calculation of net income. However, a
partner’s income can affect the allowance for children in
exempt income (see section 6.2 on page 51) and can be
taken into account in the first protected income calculation
(see section 7.5 on page 70). Non-resident parents are not
required to disclose their partner’s income, but if they do
not, an interim maintenance assessment may be
imposed.

How is it incorrect you do not have to give the CSA any info about the wage your partner earns full stop as a NRP on the old system. They claim some rubbish about protected family income. So the NRP might end up paying a little bit more.

As they can't make you give your partners details. If as they claim it is not used in the final calculation why do they need to know it in the first place. Have you ever seen how they work out it out on the old system. It is mare not easy to work out. Personally think they pluck numbers out of thin air :rotfl:

Yours


Calley

urban_spirit

calleyw wrote:

How is it incorrect you do not have to give the CSA any info about the wage your partner earns full stop as a NRP on the old system. They claim some rubbish about protected family income. So the NRP might end up paying a little bit more.

As they can't make you give your partners details. If as they claim it is not used in the final calculation why do they need to know it in the first place. Have you ever seen how they work out it out on the old system. It is mare not easy to work out. Personally think they pluck numbers out of thin air :rotfl:

Yours


Calley

Yes thanks I know how they work it out well and on their website it will tell anyone thats interested how they work it out.

Your quite right that theres no requirement in law for a partner to provide income details BUT the consequence would be an category b interim maintenance assessment which is a penalty assessment and higher than the regular assessment would be.

All the information is on their website - free and available.


And I presume when you say 'they pluck numbers out of thin air' youre talking about the MP's that actually put this stupid law in place in full detail ??