Need some advice!

Blob

Kellogs

Yes that is what the Law and the reg say should happen. But unfortunatly you are dealing witht the CSA and it is a proven fact that they dont follow these! They like to make it up as they go along, and when you prove that they are wrong the stock answer is and I quote 'That part is incompatable with the Law'

We have just got to face it they are incompetent and have no idea what they are doing and dont care what mayhem they cause in peoples lives. As such the system has to be changed to one that is fair and works, but most of all is simple enough for the people that allegedly are trained to run it to understand it, some hope there then! But the system has got to be changed before anttone else takes their own life as a result of these people!

I am also sure that the CSA have access to personal information that they have no right to, and as such abuse this as well.

Booradley

Dont have to worry about the FBI, colser to home C 14 or D 11 or everyone friend SIS, they are all home grown!:A

Lil2002

You need to appeal. You should still be within time, and it seems you need fresh eyes looking at this mess.
(And I know people will say complain, yes, do that, BUT if you don't appeal within the time frame, the decision can not be changed except for certain circumstances.)

DUTR

Zara33 wrote: »

It just miffed me that the fist operator was adament that this contact costs were for my child and this alleged signature was from me, and i even said to her your having a laugh right? no this is what it states on the screen.

When i came off the phone i was raging! :mad: how dare he claim contact costs and how dare someone forge my signature, just aswell i don't have contact details for NRP as i would have torn strips from him.

So i waited till i calmed down and phoned them back only to be told a completely different story. How can they get it so wrong! Myself and the NRP do not have a good relationship probably just aswell, but things like this carry on yesterday does nothing for parents who are on talking terms.

What concerns me most about this episode, is that from my calcs, you are 4 or 5quid a week down, however for you to get that money, you are taking it from another child's mouth.
Somewhere you have to draw the line before you get 'bitter and twisted' the NRP contributes and that is more than can be said for some others.
I can tell you from my own circumstance, once I had to pay, I was saving money.
Over the years you will find money isn't everything and the child may well grow to resent you , as your actions seem more to spite the ex, rather than for the good of the child.

Soubrette

DUTR wrote: »

What concerns me most about this episode, is that from my calcs, you are 4 or 5quid a week down, however for you to get that money, you are taking it from another child's mouth.
Somewhere you have to draw the line before you get 'bitter and twisted' the NRP contributes and that is more than can be said for some others.
I can tell you from my own circumstance, once I had to pay, I was saving money.
Over the years you will find money isn't everything and the child may well grow to resent you , as your actions seem more to spite the ex, rather than for the good of the child.

To be honest I feel that this is the point of the CSA - if only they could find some way of actioning their remit for the good of the children. Their remit should be for the children to benefit from both parents both financially and accesswise.

PWC and NRP almost invariably see things in different ways because they have made different choices and because they are individuals with their own biases and experiences - the CSA should be the impartial judge.

For example it seems you are an NRP and you talk about taking food out of the second child's mouth - however, Zara hasn't mentioned how tight her own budget is and for all we know the reduced maintenance could be taking food out of her own child's mouth. The one that was born first

I'm not saying it is so, what I am saying though is we all make assumptions based on what's happened to us, which is understandable.

What is not understandable though is to make your post personal by trying to make out she will become bitter or twisted or is acting in a way that does not put the best interests of her child first. I wish people would try not do this, particularly on this board when we are all trying hard to deal with very emotive issues.

More generally, I often think that the PWC is often judged very harshly on these boards when, in general, they try very hard to give advice to everyone whether NRP or PWC - Zara, in particular, is very good at this - not the actions of someone bitter or twisted or even on the way of becoming so. Bitter and twisted is assuming that any PWC is money grubbing and greeding, moving to the surreal when it is claimed that any money paid in maintenance by the NRP is somehow not spent on the child - implying the PWC spends absolutely zero on the child.

Thankfully we have some helpful and kinder NRP regulars who restore my faith in humanity - Blob and Mark spring to mind but there are others.

Sou

marksoton

DUTR wrote: »

What concerns me most about this episode, is that from my calcs, you are 4 or 5quid a week down, however for you to get that money, you are taking it from another child's mouth.
Somewhere you have to draw the line before you get 'bitter and twisted' the NRP contributes and that is more than can be said for some others.
I can tell you from my own circumstance, once I had to pay, I was saving money.
Over the years you will find money isn't everything and the child may well grow to resent you , as your actions seem more to spite the ex, rather than for the good of the child.

I think you need to read this thread a bit better. The NRP has stated he has full intention of lowering his liability by fair or foul means. To me that then immediately means Zara should fight for a fair assessment on principle.

The fact the CSA are almost condoning this by applying a variation when they should not only adds weight to that.

DUTR

I did put bitter and twisted in ' marks, a child is a child does not matter who came along 1st, when I have dealt with the csa and the try and stress the importance of getting the money across, I simply ask, is the child starving to death? I agree we do not know the full ins and out s of the OP episode, what I am sure about is that a deprivation of £5 is not life threatening and the state will see to that the children are not deprived of essentials.

DUTR

marksoton wrote: »

I think you need to read this thread a bit better. The NRP has stated he has full intention of lowering his liability by fair or foul means. To me that then immediately means Zara should fight for a fair assessment on principle.

The fact the CSA are almost condoning this by applying a variation when they should not only adds weight to that.

Yes, but the NRP could simply pack up work and then the PWC would get £5 week, I'm sure what she gets now is a handsome amount in comparison.
many seem to make out as if contributing should be some kind of punishment.
if the guy has moved on and started a family elsewhere it is no different than if he had further children with the OP, the budget has to be shared. Fighting for a contribution I agree with , fighting for the absolute maximum for spite is what concerns me most.

marksoton

DUTR wrote: »

Yes, but the NRP could simply pack up work and then the PWC would get £5 week, I'm sure what she gets now is a handsome amount in comparison.
many seem to make out as if contributing should be some kind of punishment.
if the guy has moved on and started a family elsewhere it is no different than if he had further children with the OP, the budget has to be shared. Fighting for a contribution I agree with , fighting for the absolute maximum for spite is what concerns me most.

Yes but at least Zara would be getting a fair assessment. What you seem to be forgetting is that in this case the NRP is committing a criminal offence in the way he is trying to lower his liability.

As for your point about sharing well thats why a reduction is given for children living with the NRP.

Don't get me wrong i hate the way the agency works sometimes ( car allowances being used in an assessment is a particular bug bear of mine ) but in this case the PWC is being badly wronged.

DUTR

marksoton wrote: »

Yes but at least Zara would be getting a fair assessment. What you seem to be forgetting is that in this case the NRP is committing a criminal offence in the way he is trying to lower his liability.

As for your point about sharing well thats why a reduction is given for children living with the NRP.

Don't get me wrong i hate the way the agency works sometimes ( car allowances being used in an assessment is a particular bug bear of mine ) but in this case the PWC is being badly wronged.

From the figures quoted, the PWC would get £42 pw , she is getting £37 iirc, all the sanctions that can be imposed to get another £5 pw is not cost effective, I wouldnt want my tax money to be assisting chasing such a small amount when there are people who don't pay and PWCs (not the OP, fiddling the DSS) .
I noticed I had a refund from the CSA last week, I was on the phone to them straight away, during the call there was a mention of re-assess, personally that would suit me again, as a pay freeze and no overtime would mean I pay less . So no, not everyone is seeking to avoid contributing.
But still stand by that something is better than nothing.

Soubrette

DUTR wrote: »

I did put bitter and twisted in ' marks, a child is a child does not matter who came along 1st, when I have dealt with the csa and the try and stress the importance of getting the money across, I simply ask, is the child starving to death? I agree we do not know the full ins and out s of the OP episode, what I am sure about is that a deprivation of £5 is not life threatening and the state will see to that the children are not deprived of essentials.

And yet you describe this money as 'not life threatening' now it is money that Zara should not get, whereas before she when she was saying it was money she should get - you described it as 'taking it from another child's mouth'.

This is what I mean by bias, even if unconsciously done. To be honest this is why the CSA will never be a loved organisation - even if it does actually get it's act together and become consistent, impartial and on the child's side (and I don't believe anyone on here will be defending the organisation as it stands).

I do agree that it doesn't matter who comes along first - all children should be supported by their parents - but you should be aware of the expense of the first, as well as the second, (or third or however many you choose to have) shouldn't you? My point was that it shouldn't really be a shock to have expenses relating to the first child after you've chosen to have another one.

I'm not sure quote marks is a good enough excuse tbh, the words are still out there - although I'm glad we are able to have a reasonable discussion about it here now

Sou