Well I called his bluff-The next step

traveller

Hi, well ex is not best pleased he will have to pay 154.00 per week and has told the children he refuses to pay it and will just make himself unemployed:rolleyes: So if he does this, Is that the end of it then, as I;m assuming it will then be a nil assesment.

It sickened me that he takes home £616.00 per week net and he tells the kids those comments.He really does feel he's been done over as his 240.00 per month was enough for the 4 of them.He has not approached me with a view to coming to an agreement because of this, so i'm just going to wait and see what happens and then contact them if he pays nothing.

kelloggs36

Good plan - is he really likely to give up a job of £616 to get £60.50 per week AND risk that he will get nothing because he deliberately packed in his job? If he did this just after CSA got hold of him, you could also argue (and appeal) that he has deprived himself of the income in order to avoid paying child support and his liability may actually remain the same - thus he is putting himself in an extremely difficult financial position. He is just trying to blackmail you - you could try and reason with him that you could meet half way - take a bit less than the CSA have said, but more than he was paying before - if he refuses then the CSA all the way.

LizzieS_2

Agree with Kellogs. Doubt anyone can add anything more.

mitchaa

To be fair 25% of someones income is a lot and his only choice may be unemployment and benefits if he has high mortgage and outstanding debts. (Claim LHA or ISMI to put a roof over his head with no council tax liability and use the benefit payments to put food on the table and to heat the home. Any debts, easy bankrupt option)

I am a high rate tax payer earning a little bit more than your ex and a 25% hit on my finances would cause me seriously to think about packing it in also.

I agree that children should be financially looked after by the NRP so im not arguing about that, but i have to say if he does not have enough leftover to put dinner on his table after all his bills then what's the point in going to work and slaving himself away?

This is why i do not agree with CSA2, his life necessities should be discounted before being assessed as everyone should be entitled to a roof over their head and warm food on the table. (But that's a whole different discussion)

Anyway, all the best with your claim

Edited to add....Traveller, you are clearly not happy with his current £240pm contribution so what are you hoping for, have you gave him an ultimatum?

I.e...Give him the option to up the maintenance to a more suitable level for you or you will go to the CSA where you will get more. You will get £670pm if you go to the CSA, why dont you try £500 or half way between the £670 and the £240 if he has high outgoings, or maybe you do want the full £670pm?

Surely a better way than just going to CSA and then risking not getting a penny if he carries out his threat? Everything has a knock on effect, he packs in his job, he has a miserable life, you have 1 too with income reduction and the relationship between all parties involved suffers. Keep yourself happy with a more substantial agreement, him happy with an affordable payment and most importantly the kids happy and unaffected by it all.

kelloggs36

HIs choice cannot be unemployment as he will be classed as having deprived himself of his job deliberately hence he will get NO Benefits.

Barneysmom

I just think it's so sad that he doesn't want to pay a decent amount for his own children's upbringing.
Does he want to see them in shabby clothes and undernourished?

kelloggs36

No my guess is that he doesn't see it that way - he sees that his money goes to the PWC and cannot get past that fact.

fairydiamond

Something I don't understand is that if a person earns more, the CSA will take more. Just exactly how much do children really need. Something I've never quite understood.

Soubrette

fairydiamond wrote: »

Something I don't understand is that if a person earns more, the CSA will take more. Just exactly how much do children really need. Something I've never quite understood.

A child's entitlement depends on their parental income - the same as if the parents were together - rather than need. It is a rare parent who lives a luxury lifestyle while their child is on the poverty line.

So Beatrice McCartney has considerably more spent on her than the average child.

If you are asking what a child really needs to survive? Considerably less than is considered poverty level in this country - the same could be asked of the parents though. As a country we spend a lot more than what we need for basic survival.

Also 15% of a net income is often easier to come up with on a higher wage than on a lower one bearing in mind that a lot of life's costs are fixed.

In short though - a child is supposed to benefit from the income of both parents. It is the parents that are divorced, not the children.

Sou

Soubrette

mitchaa wrote: »

I am a high rate tax payer earning a little bit more than your ex and a 25% hit on my finances would cause me seriously to think about packing it in also.

Do I remember that you have one child mitchaa? If you're worried about a 25% hit on your finances then don't have any more and don't let your little one grow into a hulking teenager

Unfortunately the reason CSA1 was changed was because some NRPs do not want to do right by their children and enough of them tried to dodge payments by increasing their expenses unfairly - taking on debt, upgrading their rent etc at the expense of their children. Not all (or even most I believe) NRPs are like this but enough were to change the rules.

Sou

traveller

mitchaa wrote: »

To be fair 25% of someones income is a lot and his only choice may be unemployment and benefits if he has high mortgage and outstanding debts. (Claim LHA or ISMI to put a roof over his head with no council tax liability and use the benefit payments to put food on the table and to heat the home. Any debts, easy bankrupt option)

I am a high rate tax payer earning a little bit more than your ex and a 25% hit on my finances would cause me seriously to think about packing it in also.

I agree that children should be financially looked after by the NRP so im not arguing about that, but i have to say if he does not have enough leftover to put dinner on his table after all his bills then what's the point in going to work and slaving himself away?

This is why i do not agree with CSA2, his life necessities should be discounted before being assessed as everyone should be entitled to a roof over their head and warm food on the table. (But that's a whole different discussion)

Anyway, all the best with your claim

Edited to add....Traveller, you are clearly not happy with his current £240pm contribution so what are you hoping for, have you gave him an ultimatum?

I.e...Give him the option to up the maintenance to a more suitable level for you or you will go to the CSA where you will get more. You will get £670pm if you go to the CSA, why dont you try £500 or half way between the £670 and the £240 if he has high outgoings, or maybe you do want the full £670pm?

Surely a better way than just going to CSA and then risking not getting a penny if he carries out his threat? Everything has a knock on effect, he packs in his job, he has a miserable life, you have 1 too with income reduction and the relationship between all parties involved suffers. Keep yourself happy with a more substantial agreement, him happy with an affordable payment and most importantly the kids happy and unaffected by it all.

Hi, my ex has been approached many times for a review of this amount-£80 per month more to be exact.He told me he will not pay it and to go to the csa as they will agree he pays too much already.

At christmas, he told the kids they can spend no more than 50 quid for a present-which he goes halves on with his mum.Yet he took them to Selfridges and had them watch him pick out fragrances for 70 quid for his girlfriend-who probably believes he's the doting father,lol.

So as you can see, I didn't want to involve the csa-he was banking on a reduced payment:rolleyes: He hasn't approached me with regards to a review-I don't feel it's for me to chase him.