Can the CSA leave father destitute ? ? ?

Cozworth806

I did say when the new system came in that they should have disregarded housing at least as the costs of housing would have been covered, as the rental in some parts of the country would easily be 50% of an average workers take home, which in turn would leave only 25-35%.

Yes its not fair but its unlikely to change.

Loopy_Girl

Soubrette wrote: »

Just looked it up - 25% of net income on CSA2 is for 3 children or more.

Sou

Precisely. So lets just say it is 3 kids (could be more) then that a figure of £75 for 3 kids - bit of a bargain there I would say.

Interesting that it's the CSA leaving the OP 'destitute' - why isn't the rental prices in their area getting the blame...or the gas prices...or running a car....or the Asda bill....

Oh no yeah I forgot, it's always up to the PWC to take all the financial burden. I mean after all, you are only allowed one job in this country (which is strange as I have 2 jobs to support my daughter...:rolleyes:)

Soubrette

Loopy_Girl wrote: »

Precisely. So lets just say it is 3 kids (could be more) then that a figure of £75 for 3 kids - bit of a bargain there I would say.

Interesting that it's the CSA leaving the OP 'destitute' - why isn't the rental prices in their area getting the blame...or the gas prices...or running a car....or the Asda bill....

Oh no yeah I forgot, it's always up to the PWC to take all the financial burden. I mean after all, you are only allowed one job in this country (which is strange as I have 2 jobs to support my daughter...:rolleyes:)

Actually I think the OP is a windup merchant

There has been lots of suggestions here on how it may be possible to reduce his liability (nights over, variation etc) if he gives more info but it seems he just wanted to make a 'woe is me' post rather than look for helpful info or advice.:rolleyes:

The CSA isn't great but it's all we've got - there are ways and means of reducing your liability as well your excellent suggestion of upping income or alternatively making savings.

I'll bet most people would be helped if they asked for advice and followed through with a combination of one or more of those three avenues.

As to your other point on why is it the CSA making him destitute - it's because paying for one's own children is not seen as a priority for some people in the same way that housing (or sky tv:eek:) is for example.

And your last point on the PWC taking the financial burden, I think that is why some NRPs claim that none of their money is spent on the children - the PWCs financial input is somehow invisible but anything that the PWC chooses to spend on themselves is miraculously seen as coming only from the NRP.

Bitter and twisted? Sometimes I think I'm getting there

Sou

Blob

One point that you might like to consider, is that the CSA actually took me below what I would have got on basic benifits. I had rent to pay as well as getting to work and food for myself and the kids when they were with me.

Oh yes.

Child Support Law states that they should leave you with £30 a week more than you would get on benifit! Nice if they actually started to live by their own law, this would I am sure remove many of the problems that people that are trying to put their lives back togeather have. On both sides of the fence that is.

kelloggs36

But those limits don't include arrears - it only applies to your basic assessment.

shellnapier

the fact is, if they were still togther , no matter how much money taking home you wwould have to pay for kids

Soubrette

shellnapier wrote: »

the fact is, if they were still togther , no matter how much money taking home you wwould have to pay for kids

To be fair though - if you have a lower income then your children will have a lower standard of living - so if one parent unexpected lost their job then the children would have less spent on them.

I always think it is harder to find the requisite percentage from a low salary compared to a higher one as people have so many fixed costs to pay.

However, to pick up on Kelloggs point - a lot of people are in financial hardships because of arrears, sometimes this is unfortunate and unavoidable but sometimes it is because people do not put the money aside while they are waiting for an assessment.

Sou

cozzie

My OH got an initial assessment of £120pw, then found out that this didn't include housing costs or the fact that he has custody of one of his children, the next assessment (taking these into account-apparently) was £96.

Are they saying that a mortgage and child should only cost him £24pw? If so, why is he then not paying £48ish towards 2 other children and their mother's rent.

I don't understand any of it. If you look at these situations from an unbiased view and with the attitude that 'what would happen would the parent's still be living together' then the figures just don't add up.

LizzieS_2

cozzie wrote: »

My OH got an initial assessment of £120pw, then found out that this didn't include housing costs or the fact that he has custody of one of his children, the next assessment (taking these into account-apparently) was £96.

Are they saying that a mortgage and child should only cost him £24pw? If so, why is he then not paying £48ish towards 2 other children and their mother's rent.

I don't understand any of it. If you look at these situations from an unbiased view and with the attitude that 'what would happen would the parent's still be living together' then the figures just don't add up.

On csa2 £120pw for 3 children corresponds to £96pw for 2 children. But, it ignores a reduction for a child in his care so should really be £82pw.

On csa1, it is possible the £120pw was not the actual amount assessed, but was restricted to the amount deemed affordable from income. Whereas the whole of the £96pw passed both tests.

I looked back at your posts to work out which of the 2 schemes your OH is on - gave up when I saw you had previously claimed the assessment had been originally £30pw (not much difference there!).

Blob

shellnapier wrote: »

the fact is, if they were still togther , no matter how much money taking home you wwould have to pay for kids

Totally agree, but when parted the NRP has to support two households. As I say if that has to be done on less than you would get on Benifit, what is the point of working in the first place?

Kellogs.

The Law states that you have to be left with this amount so that you dont give up work. If the CSA then go against this, it is unlawful and defeats the whole point of the CSA getting money from the NRP to pay the PWCs benifit.

How ever you wnat ot look at it the NRP has to be left in a position that it is worth their while going to work. If not you are actively encouraging people on to teh 'Black Economy', to work overseas or give up 'gainful employment'. From my point of view that is not what the system was set up for, though I may be wrong, and people may disagree!