Giving the CSA valuable documentation

Cozworth806

kelloggs36 wrote: »

What do you mean that credit card repayments can be included - they are specifically excluded when working out disposable income.

When considering lifestyle calculations, the spending on credit cards are disregarded but the repayments to the cards themselves (whether minimum payments or more) are still payments which can be looked at to ascertain the true level of income.

cd36uk

My ex recently appealed against the £69 per week he is being made to pay through DOE and all the proof documentation he sent them have been sent to me, as a result i now know exactly how much he earns and where he lives. Handy information when he pleads poverty due to the csa!

kelloggs36

Ah I see what you mean - I was thinking about debts which are disregarded.

overthehills

kelloggs36 wrote: »

If it is a departure she has to be able to comment on whatever evidence you are relying on. .

I think that stinks. Will the CSA show the NRP common courtesy and ask the RP to cough up bank statements and such to show SHE is either on a low income or has so much cash she doesn't really need the extra money but is going for the variation becvase shes a woman and can and wants to get as much out of the NRP, not only his child, but his money too??

Found_true_love

overthehills wrote: »

I think that stinks. Will the CSA show the NRP common courtesy and ask the RP to cough up bank statements and such to show SHE is either on a low income or has so much cash she doesn't really need the extra money but is going for the variation becvase shes a woman and can and wants to get as much out of the NRP, not only his child, but his money too??

:T

Good point and something else I think should be said.

A child needs (given similar lifestyles) about the same amount of money weather the NRP earns £15k or £35k why does the RP get more money depending on the NRP earning? surely the NRP is supporting the child not the RP and the childs costs stay the same no matter how much the NRP earns....

Itz a kraizy cystem, one that was thought up by the government as a way of clawing back money for the benefits system by penalizing the NRP because the RP is now claiming benefits, but we all now suffer because of it

Lets all become self employed its the only way to get a reasonable deal

pd001

Found_true_love wrote: »

Lets all become self employed its the only way to get a reasonable deal

Noe that is a very interesting point and well worth investigating and maybe discussing further

kelloggs36

overthehills wrote: »

I think that stinks. Will the CSA show the NRP common courtesy and ask the RP to cough up bank statements and such to show SHE is either on a low income or has so much cash she doesn't really need the extra money but is going for the variation becvase shes a woman and can and wants to get as much out of the NRP, not only his child, but his money too??

How is the PWC income relevant to whether the NRP has correctly divulged their true income? Even if she has so much cash that she doesn't need it does not mean that the NRP needs to pay nothing. Under CS1 BOTH parties were assessed and the higher they earned the more they contributed. Under CS2 it is only NRP who is assessed because it was deemed that the PWC was already paying their share of the costs by default. It still means that the NRP has to pay what is deemed to be 'affordable' regardless of what the PWC status is.

Soubrette

Found_true_love wrote: »

:T
A child needs (given similar lifestyles) about the same amount of money weather the NRP earns £15k or £35k why does the RP get more money depending on the NRP earning? surely the NRP is supporting the child not the RP and the childs costs stay the same no matter how much the NRP earns....

Itz a kraizy cystem, one that was thought up by the government as a way of clawing back money for the benefits system by penalizing the NRP because the RP is now claiming benefits, but we all now suffer because of it

Lets all become self employed its the only way to get a reasonable deal

There are many ways that a child can benefit from the higher income of a NRP - let's assume for arguments sake that my ex actually does contribute 20% of his net income towards the upkeep of our two children.

First, I might choose to work part time (my lovely PWCP ensures that I can do this any way ) so that I am available for the children more often - there are plenty of studies that show that children of people who work full time have a more difficult time compared to those whose parents are stay at home or work part time.

There might be a choice to put a substantial amount of money to one side to help the children through college or university - I believe there are studies that show that children from poorer backgrounds are less likely to go to university on grounds of cost. I believe there is also evidence to show that children who go to university earn more on average, than those that don't.

There might be an opportunity to help out with large one off expenses such as weddings or house deposits.

With the NRP contribution there may be the opportunity to move to a bigger house - we are having huge discussions about this at the moment - neither of my girls want to move out of this area but if we move up to a bigger house/bigger garden then we can't afford to stay in this area - a bigger house means more privacy (perhaps a room eachfor some families) as well as socialising skills (more sleepovers with more people - perhaps moving isn't such a good idea )

There are also things that can be used directly to help the children as they grow up - nicer clothes, more expensive haircuts, perhaps private lessons for hobbies such as horse riding, music lessons etc that may not be available if both a low income PWC and a high income NRP put in exactly the same amount into the children.

This is just off the top of my head but basically children are supposed to benefit from the income of both their parents in the same they would have done before they divorced.

The key for me though is that so many NRPs (like my real ex rather than the fantasy one I've created above :rolleyes: ) say they don't want the PWC to benefit from their payments but in reality just want to pay as little as possible towards their children because basically they want to keep as much money as possible for themselves - otherwise they would be putting money by for their children or buying things for them directly.

Sou

Found_true_love

Soubrette wrote: »

There are many ways that a child can benefit from the higher income of a NRP - let's assume for arguments sake that my ex actually does contribute 20% of his net income towards the upkeep of our two children.

First, I might choose to work part time (my lovely PWCP ensures that I can do this any way ) so that I am available for the children more often - there are plenty of studies that show that children of people who work full time have a more difficult time compared to those whose parents are stay at home or work part time.

There might be a choice to put a substantial amount of money to one side to help the children through college or university - I believe there are studies that show that children from poorer backgrounds are less likely to go to university on grounds of cost. I believe there is also evidence to show that children who go to university earn more on average, than those that don't.

There might be an opportunity to help out with large one off expenses such as weddings or house deposits.

With the NRP contribution there may be the opportunity to move to a bigger house - we are having huge discussions about this at the moment - neither of my girls want to move out of this area but if we move up to a bigger house/bigger garden then we can't afford to stay in this area - a bigger house means more privacy (perhaps a room eachfor some families) as well as socialising skills (more sleepovers with more people - perhaps moving isn't such a good idea )

There are also things that can be used directly to help the children as they grow up - nicer clothes, more expensive haircuts, perhaps private lessons for hobbies such as horse riding, music lessons etc that may not be available if both a low income PWC and a high income NRP put in exactly the same amount into the children.

This is just off the top of my head but basically children are supposed to benefit from the income of both their parents in the same they would have done before they divorced.

The key for me though is that so many NRPs (like my real ex rather than the fantasy one I've created above :rolleyes: ) say they don't want the PWC to benefit from their payments but in reality just want to pay as little as possible towards their children because basically they want to keep as much money as possible for themselves - otherwise they would be putting money by for their children or buying things for them directly.

Sou

Oh Sou

I hope I havn't touched a raw nerve there.

Why would the NRP want to give the PWC the control of the money? In my case if I keep my money I can spend it on the/my child myself. I do not need to hand the money over for the child to benefit, he or she will benefit when he has contact with me I will have more money to spend on nice clothes, presents, bigger houses, holidays, private tuition the list is as you point out endless on what I could be doing with the money when the child is with me

But hey hang on a minute............

I am only allowed to see him for two nights every fortnight so he can experience such a lifestyle, maybe if she let him be with me a bit more it will achieve one/two/three/four....... things

1/ It will reduce the financial burden on her because we have a shared care arrangement of 50/50 time
2/ He will get the benefit of having more time with his daddy
3/ she can now go to work without the worry of what she has to do with the little critter because I am looking after him for 50% of the time and therefore she can come off benefits and earn a proper living and it will improve her self esteem and enable her to support herself better
4/ the state benefits because they are not paying her benefits
5/ If she wanted to keep the lifestyle that came about because the NRP earns lots of money she should have worked to make the relationship work

Choice to get together choice to split up, the NRP (in my case thats me) wants to see his son more but is stopped by mum via a stupid court order, now if ex really wanted to be reasonable she would have let dad have more time with son and not force dad to go to court.

Dad is happy to fully support son within the confine of his own new family just because his is stopped the contact doesn't mean he has to give his money away to his ex to make him feel that he is supporting his son.

Get my drift?

Oh and BTW Sou, I cant tell if you are really being ironic or you have expressed your views as intended

Soubrette

Found_true_love wrote: »

Oh Sou

I hope I havn't touched a raw nerve there.

Only with regards to my lying ex

Found_true_love wrote: »

Why would the NRP want to give the PWC the control of the money? In my case if I keep my money I can spend it on the/my child myself. I do not need to hand the money over for the child to benefit, he or she will benefit when he has contact with me I will have more money to spend on nice clothes, presents, bigger houses, holidays, private tuition the list is as you point out endless on what I could be doing with the money when the child is with me

But in my experience most NRPs don't do this - mine in fact (after declaring a derisory income and being assessed at £15 per week for each of the girls) sent a smug little email saying about now that an independent body had assessed his income, he would not be paying a penny towards their upkeep.

He has also told the girls that if they stay with him at university then they will be charged rent accordingly.

He has also stated he will not buy their clothes at all - not even a proportion of them for the time he sees them.

What can be done about people like this?

But hey hang on a minute............

I am only allowed to see him for two nights every fortnight so he can experience such a lifestyle, maybe if she let him be with me a bit more it will achieve one/two/three/four....... things

1/ It will reduce the financial burden on her because we have a shared care arrangement of 50/50 time
2/ He will get the benefit of having more time with his daddy
3/ she can now go to work without the worry of what she has to do with the little critter because I am looking after him for 50% of the time and therefore she can come off benefits and earn a proper living and it will improve her self esteem and enable her to support herself better
4/ the state benefits because they are not paying her benefits
5/ If she wanted to keep the lifestyle that came about because the NRP earns lots of money she should have worked to make the relationship work

Choice to get together choice to split up, the NRP (in my case thats me) wants to see his son more but is stopped by mum via a stupid court order, now if ex really wanted to be reasonable she would have let dad have more time with son and not force dad to go to court.

I do not agree with PWCs limiting time spent with the NRP - in fact with same sex relationships I actually think it is more important

I have been advised to stop contact between the girls and their dad - I can't do it for the sake of the girls. I mean can't in the sense that I won't do it because of the impact on the girls rather than I am prevented by law from doing it.

Dad is happy to fully support son within the confine of his own new family just because his is stopped the contact doesn't mean he has to give his money away to his ex to make him feel that he is supporting his son.

Get my drift?

Oh and BTW Sou, I cant tell if you are really being ironic or you have expressed your views as intended

Totally unironic - I'm not very good at irony

Unfortunately our system is not set up as a shared care system and that is a great shame but on the other hand not all parents are as obviously as caring as you are - if what you say is true and you are prepared to put money by, or pay directly for your children then fair play to you - another person I wish was my ex (btw you'd have unrestricted access to the children based on their wishes if you were my ex )

Unfortunately some NRP want all the benefits of being non resident with none of the drawbacks.

Sou