he keeps threatening csa

Soubrette

I also want to say that my post about how much money was spent on the girls last year was not supposed to be about what a feckless idiot my ex is - it was supposed to illustrate how much it costs me to bring up two teenagers on a fairly frugal lifestyle (nobody drinks or smokes in this household although we do have a wicked pepsimax habit ) with a few luxuries.

Sou

catenorfolk

Lol!!! i dont like pepsi max, i prefer diet coke (with bacardi in it) x

Soubrette

catenorfolk wrote: »

Lol!!! i dont like pepsi max, i prefer diet coke (with bacardi in it) x

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

hamstercheeks_2

catenorfolk wrote: »

the reason someone on benefits only paying £5 (rightly or wrongly) is because every one on benefits has a protected income - despite the fact that their kids are not getting any extras and that the pwc is struggling!

this I do not agree with.

If someone is out working and earning say £1000 a month and they have to pay for rented accom, let's say £500a month - so the PWC is entitled to 10% per child that would leave that person with 300 a month once they had paid accom, council tax expenses to work etc. well hell mend that guy if he ever falls into arrears andfinds out he owes them £600 in one month - they would hound that person, not caring that he would not have enough to pay for his accommodation etc.

why is it that the NRPs are expected to magically come up with arrears etc and 'not entitled to any quality of life'

kelloggs36

Because they are expected to put the money aside from the moment the CSA get in touch with them. They are expected to be able to work out the relevant % and therefore not fall into arrears as they should be able to pay it off in a lump sum once the CSA ask for the money. Under CS1 this was much more difficult to work out, but under CS2 there really isn't any excuse for not being able to work out what your liability is and putting it away - unless you have moved and the CSA have messed up by sending to incorrect address, but even then if the NRP is sensible, they should notify CSA of new address etc or change in job etc.

catenorfolk

Well said!! I understand there are a lot of problems with the CSA but no one can tell me that ALL these people have never received any paperwork from the CSA over a long period of time. I know this does happen sometimes, but honestly not that often. Everyone knows that their children should be supported and why should the PWC not have a quality of life as well just because the NRP doesnt want to pay or pay a reasonable level. - before anyone shouts at me, I am not talking about the NRPs' that do pay properly. Unfortunately when a family splits it is hard for both sides of the parties

b1ade

Because they are expected to put the money aside from the moment the CSA get in touch with them. They are expected to be able to work out the relevant % and therefore not fall into arrears as they should be able to pay it off in a lump sum once the CSA ask for the money. Under CS1 this was much more difficult to work out, but under CS2 there really isn't any excuse for not being able to work out what your liability is and putting it away - unless you have moved and the CSA have messed up by sending to incorrect address, but even then if the NRP is sensible, they should notify CSA of new address etc or change in job etc.

yes under the new system it is easy to work out all cases under the old system should automaticly be changed to the new system none of this crap reducing it over a period of 5 years.
and yes i was screwed under the old system took them 1 week to recieve all forms from me and 53 weeks to asess it and then say i owe £7000 in arrears even though i was paying 27 percent of my wages to my ex who denided it even when i produced bank statements to prove this the csa still worked it out wrong.
even when i had a nervous break down which I hold the csa totally responsable for when i did return to work 5 months later they increased my payments to claim back the payments that weren't made while i was i'll
i know pay just sort of £800 a month under the old system while under the new would be about £350 even though my ex works full time even if its minimum wage works out to £800 a month also her partner works (even though i understand his money doesnt come into it) he earns £1200 a month but as the csa say she claims tax credits so has no income and if i claim them they want some of that so she lives on £2800 ish a month yet has no income the csa should be abolished for there incompetance alone :mad:

Soubrette

hamstercheeks wrote: »

this I do not agree with.

If someone is out working and earning say £1000 a month and they have to pay for rented accom, let's say £500a month - so the PWC is entitled to 10% per child that would leave that person with 300 a month once they had paid accom, council tax expenses to work etc. well hell mend that guy if he ever falls into arrears andfinds out he owes them £600 in one month - they would hound that person, not caring that he would not have enough to pay for his accommodation etc.

why is it that the NRPs are expected to magically come up with arrears etc and 'not entitled to any quality of life'

Some might say the same for the PWC though, I'm very lucky, my current husband heavily subsidises the children from my former marriage despite being worth a lot less than the girls' Dad in both savings and earning power.

Also single PWCs have to cope with no 'me' time and struggle with the logistics of juggling jobs/child care etc. (I know your case is more complicated than this ) My ex however gets to play devoted Dad or devoted Boyfriend as it suits him. I do not have that luxury - I am always Mum and I am always there for them, here at their home. I don't say - no you can't come over, no you can't live with us unless you abide by certain rules, no I'm too busy in the week to see you.

I actually believe that some income should be protected as no one should be on the streets because they can't afford rent etc but all these rules are in place because some silly NRP decided to buck the system, to reduce liability to the children by trying to reduce net income, increasing debt, renting places they wouldn't normally with a high rental.

If everyone was honest and just coughed up the prescribed percentage of income and placed their children's needs on the same priority as council tax then PWC and NRP could just work it out - but it's not like that. Mark is a very nice man but believes that there is a certain minimum cost to bringing up a child and why should the NRP be liable for anything else. Believe it or not, I am a very nice woman and equally believe that my children should be benefit from the income from both myself and their Dad - how can those two views ever come together without the intervention of a neutral third party?

Sou

catenorfolk

very well put!!!!!

LizzieS_2

Soubrette wrote: »

As you can see, I didn't count those essential items such as electricity etc because I couldn't think of a fair way to apportion them, I keep my paperwork so if anyone has any good ideas then I'd be interested

Council tax - adults only (though see water).

Water - depends if you are on a meter or have a high rated house value due to needing a bigger size to accomodate the children, easiest way is to work out what you would live in and pay and count any excess you are having to pay where you are (no cheating though - got to stick to a smaller property of a similiar nature and in same area).

Gas - split it equally among house members.

Electricity - as gas

Car - apportion off work costs first. The rest is either running a taxi for children, shopping for clothes/food for all, days out/holidays - apportion equally.

TV License - adults only as you would have to pay this anyway.

Food etc - split equally (teens usually eat adult portions, and very young ones have the added costs of nappies etc - only 3-10 could be a little cheaper).

Clothes/school trips/mobile top-ups/after school activities - ouch those do add up!

Income-wise, for the first the Government will pay £20 CB and £10 family tax credits (assuming income under 58K), for any further child it's £13.20 CB only. Yes, some pwc receive more TC, but it is not a hand-out - it is actually to cover a fraction of the earnings they could otherwise have.

Thank goodness my ex doesn't squabble over actual costs to the point of having petty arguments over what he should pay towards - he, like me, just wants the children to have the same they would have had if we had still been together. And he doesn't bother over the bills either - accepts my bills are higher and surprisingly even doesn't bother over the mortgage (rent equivalent would actually cost more).