Child Maintenance (CSA) questions (merged)

kelloggs36

MonkeySaving? wrote:

You won't get any extra CSA payments just because he has a new partner, it doesn't work like that i'm afraid...If you've been told this by someone in the CSA then they need sacking..

Not entirely true. If she has an income of her own and the OP applies for a Departure to apportion the housing costs between the NRP and his new partner, then it can make a difference. In a bog-standard assessment the new partner's details cannot make a difference, but it CAN in the case of a Departure on this ground. So there is no need to sack anybody :j

kelloggs36

worrypants wrote:

if he goes to prison how will he pay QUOTE]

As he isn't paying now, it won't make any difference:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

However, it may teach him a lesson! Anyway he was already given a suspended sentence so I would be surprised if he gets let off as lightly this time (here's hoping - ever the optimist!:rotfl: ) If he doesn't turn up, a warrant for his arrest will be issued.

kelloggs36

MonkeySaving? wrote:

They won't end of story...The CSA deals with the absent parent and the parent..no one else comes into it.

This applies only to the new scheme which came into force in 2003. There are many, many cases still on the old where the partner's details are relevant although in many cases they make no difference - but see previous post where this is not the case.

MonkeySaving?

kelloggs36 wrote:

Not entirely true. If she has an income of her own and the OP applies for a Departure to apportion the housing costs between the NRP and his new partner, then it can make a difference. In a bog-standard assessment the new partner's details cannot make a difference, but it CAN in the case of a Departure on this ground. So there is no need to sack anybody :j

It's highly unlikely to come to that, after all she could just leave him, i know i would if i was going to be forced to pay for someone elses non resident kid. In terms of departure the CSA quotes:

Where a parent has substantial special expenses
(normally of more than £15 per week) which are not
properly covered by the formula;
• Where the non-resident parent transferred some
property or capital to the parent with care before April
1993 to reduce the amount of ongoing child
maintenance that he or she would have to pay; and
• ‘additional cases’- mainly where the money that a
parent has available to him or her is not properly
reflected in the formula assessment.

I'm guessing he would fall into the "additional cases" section, in which he had additional money provided by his girlfriend. I'd love to see this case go to court

MonkeySaving?

kelloggs36 wrote:

This applies only to the new scheme which came into force in 2003. There are many, many cases still on the old where the partner's details are relevant although in many cases they make no difference - but see previous post where this is not the case.

Just seen this, not fully aware of the breakdown of the new scheme so apologies in advance :beer:

kelloggs36

No probs! I do know the facts I was a Face to Face Officer! lol

djdido2

kellogg$36.

ju$t to $ay i admire your determination in thi$ $ituation. Your ca$e mirror i$ a mirror image of mine. ha$ gone the legal route yet though I $u$pect it'll happen in the very near future! *cro$$e$ finger$*. I too am going to fight to the very end!! my former partner doe$ not pay for or $ee d$ ju$t to make me $uffer.

keep u$ updated. be good too $ee you get a good re$ult.

djdido:)

welshcakes

As a PWC I have great empathy for all those having to go through the stress and financial pressure of chasing an elusive NRP. It is so important to pester the CSA (I always log all call conversations to them and note their names and call them by their first names during each call). I managed to get an Attachment of Earnings against NRP however a change of emplyer has caused a 4 months deficit in any payments.

He already had arrears and now this additional 4 months is being spread as additional arrears over the next 24 months! Wouldn't it be nice if we as PWC were also awarded a lost interest calculation since the NRP is in effect gaining bank interest on 'our' money?

I don't lose any sleep over hounding him via the CSA as I consider myself as representing my children not myself, it is their legal right to benefit from his parental contribution.

jocymru75

MonkeySaving? wrote:

It's highly unlikely to come to that, after all she could just leave him, i know i would if i was going to be forced to pay for someone elses non resident kid. In terms of departure the CSA quotes:

Where a parent has substantial special expenses
(normally of more than £15 per week) which are not
properly covered by the formula;
• Where the non-resident parent transferred some
property or capital to the parent with care before April
1993 to reduce the amount of ongoing child
maintenance that he or she would have to pay; and
• ‘additional cases’- mainly where the money that a
parent has available to him or her is not properly
reflected in the formula assessment.

I'm guessing he would fall into the "additional cases" section, in which he had additional money provided by his girlfriend. I'd love to see this case go to court

I also think he falls into the 'additional cases' and we may see this going to court, depending on what I hear from the csa in the next month. I haven't yet applied for 'departure' as internet wasn't working on the day that i 4nd, but that is my next move!!

Thank you all for the great advice!!

aMeLia'S~MuMMY

You need to get your departures application in as it will only go from when you apply.

:A