Need some advice!

Soubrette

DUTR wrote: »

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.

No, lots of parents work hard to try to the best by their children, no one is saying that all NPR are feckless idiots, we are talking about Zara's case in particular here, but nonetheless, all responsible parents deserve a pat on the back - particularly when they have a less than ideal ex. I am sure for people like you who actually pay more than the CSA recommend, it beggars believe that someone would want to reduce payments to their children - but they are out there and unfortunately they require supervision to make sure they pay anything.

It doesn't seem as if Zara's ex is as generous or honest as you though - perhaps he should have an extra £5 taken every month, if he found to be lying

Here's another thought - he gets away with £5 less this month - 3 months time he reduces it again - three months later again. At what stage do we say - enough is enough? Or, taking it to the extremes, is a pound better than nothing?

Sou

marksoton

DUTR wrote: »

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.

Yes but Zara is contesting that the other child should not even be assessed for as the NRP is still living with them ! Therefore it is more than £5.

I still maintain that she is in the right to contest it on principle simply because the NRP has stated they will do all they can to avoid paying a fair assessment.

I see you asked on another thread what happened to the parents centre. It was closed down due to hacking. It is sort of open again but is rubbish, i really would not bother.

Zara33

marksoton wrote: »

Yes but Zara is contesting that the other child should not even be assessed for as the NRP is still living with them ! Therefore it is more than £5.

I still maintain that she is in the right to contest it on principle simply because the NRP has stated they will do all they can to avoid paying a fair assessment.

I see you asked on another thread what happened to the parents centre. It was closed down due to hacking. It is sort of open again but is rubbish, i really would not bother.

This is exactly what i am disputing! my NRP is not a NRP to the othe child they all live together, i expect adjustments for this...just not the NRP and his new prtner claiming they live apart just to screw me over

:pbitter and twisted yup that's me to a tee!

DUTR

Soubrette wrote: »

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

What I am seeing in Zara's case though, is that it has gone past the ex contributing for the child they had together to a battle between the 2 parents, sometimes the CSA can be used as a spite tool. His intention is not to avoid paying anything but to not let the PWC 'win' by paying the max, win win or lose lose.
Let me apologise for the bitter and twisted comment as I was not suggesting that of the OP. Just dont want to see anger take over what I now see as a petty issue.

Zara33

Having computer problems will be back later to answer your posts dutr.

DUTR

Zara33 wrote: »

Having computer problems will be back later to answer your posts dutr.

ooh, just been here a day and got a date already :beer:

DUTR

Soubrette wrote: »

No, lots of parents work hard to try to the best by their children, no one is saying that all NPR are feckless idiots, we are talking about Zara's case in particular here, but nonetheless, all responsible parents deserve a pat on the back - particularly when they have a less than ideal ex. I am sure for people like you who actually pay more than the CSA recommend, it beggars believe that someone would want to reduce payments to their children - but they are out there and unfortunately they require supervision to make sure they pay anything.

It doesn't seem as if Zara's ex is as generous or honest as you though - perhaps he should have an extra £5 taken every month, if he found to be lying

Here's another thought - he gets away with £5 less this month - 3 months time he reduces it again - three months later again. At what stage do we say - enough is enough? Or, taking it to the extremes, is a pound better than nothing?

Sou

I don't actually pay more than they suggest, it is just that the original assesment was based on a temporary inflated salary.Yes this thread is Zara's and no I'm not generous, I will only pay the going rate

Soubrette

DUTR wrote: »

I don't actually pay more than they suggest, it is just that the original assesment was based on a temporary inflated salary.Yes this thread is Zara's and no I'm not generous, I will only pay the going rate

Ahh I see, I thought you were saying that the original assessement was on a temporary inflated salary but you were still continuing to pay that amount despite being offered a reassessment because the salary had gone down to its normal non inflated rate (I hope that makes sense)

I wouldn't pay more than the going rate myself if I was an NRP - I'd pay anything extra direct to my child.

The comment about Zara's thread was just to make sure that you realise I was commenting on Zara's NRP - who seems less than honest and responsible and not all NRPs - some of whom are very nice

Sou

DUTR

Soubrette wrote: »

Ahh I see, I thought you were saying that the original assessement was on a temporary inflated salary but you were still continuing to pay that amount despite being offered a reassessment because the salary had gone down to its normal non inflated rate (I hope that makes sense)

I wouldn't pay more than the going rate myself if I was an NRP - I'd pay anything extra direct to my child.

The comment about Zara's thread was just to make sure that you realise I was commenting on Zara's NRP - who seems less than honest and responsible and not all NRPs - some of whom are very nice

Sou

My original assesment is what I am paying even though effectively my salary has reduced, if when the PWC applies for a re-assesment that is when they will be in for a shock
I'm not nice really, just I be not nice in a nice way

Soubrette

DUTR wrote: »

My original assesment is what I am paying even though effectively my salary has reduced, if when the PWC applies for a re-assesment that is when they will be in for a shock
I'm not nice really, just I be not nice in a nice way

I'm intrigued now

Is this right?

You are paying more than the government/csa require of you because your total income has dropped.

You are not going to do anything about this and the payments will remain the same unless the PWC requests a reassessment - even though as NRP you are perfectly entitled to ask for a reassessment yourself.

The PWC may or may not ask for a reassessment and in any case will get to keep any extra money up until the time that an assessment is requested and you are contacted for your new details.

And this is not nice because the PWC may get a shock depending on whether they push for a new assessment, although in the meantime they get more than they are due and if they don't ask for a reassessment, will continue to do so.

I'd love to be in on something where you were actually putting yourself out to be nice

Sou