CS1 Departures Help

Blob

One other thing is that it is the resopnsibility of BOTH parents to keep teh children so BOTH parents should get out there and work, not expect just one parent to do it all as is the case in many cases! How about the assesmetn being split 50/50 so that it is then seen to be both parents paying their way?

DUTR

weejay6000 wrote: »

Hi,

If she helps towards the housing costs, would the extra money available to my ex help to increase my weekly payment?

Would the CSA tell him it was me that said he had a partner living with him?

What do you think about his taxi's to and from work? If he's on a week of early shifts he needs to get a taxi to work (no buses running) and if he's on a week of lates he needs a taxi home (or so it states on the copy of his departure I received) however I've checked the times of the buses at
night and they run 1hour 15mins after his shift finishes so he would be able to get a bus home. I once mentioned this to the CSA but they said it didn't make any difference to my payment. But they've allocated money allowing 5 taxi's per week but really it's only 5 taxi's per fortnight.

Hope this makes sense.
Thanks again

How do you know if she helps towards the housing costs? If I moved somebody stayed at mine overnight whether it be one or 7 nights a week they are their as my guests , so may not necessarily be contributing.
Whether the buses run late at night after his shift or not, late night buses are not always the safest place to be, I know at our place if a shift finishes after a certain time then public transport as in trains and buses are not expected to be used, how much difference is 5 taxis or 2.5 taxis a week really going to make? Could you not link up with a rich new partner?

DUTR

weejay6000 wrote: »

Hi DUTR,

If somebody was your guest would they move all their belongings in (see post #3)?

His shifts finish at 9pm, so would you class that as a 'late night bus'? My shift finishes at 10:15pm and I get the bus home.

He's allocated £70 per week for 5 taxi's so 2.5 taxi's would make a difference.

I only receive £6.10 per week (that's when I get it) I'm sorry if I feel that's a bit low.

Thanks

Yes they could, i was a guest a a mate's house and moved all my belongings in, when I sold my last house before getting this one, in fact my GF from 10yrs ago had all her belongings here when she was moving flats.
So he would be assesed on £35 more , that does not mean you would get the whole of that £35, also you are getting more than £6.10 per week, you are paying back over payments remember?, sounds like the politicians who made expense claim mistakes, strange how none of them were up for not claiming enough and the error was always in the claimants favour.
I know children can be pricey to raise, however the burden is on both parents not just one (NRP), if I won the lotto tonight say £50k , should that entitle the pwc to more money? after all it was not she who purchased the ticket, I'm sorry but the post seems more about your ex moving on as opposed to CS contributions
How he commutes from work ? I wouldn't be ever getting a bus back home after 2100hrs and I certainley wouldn't be doing so just so that somebody else can have a few more quid :eek:

DUTR

weejay6000 wrote: »

You seem to have got my post all wrong.

Perhaps you should clarify which bit is wrong. I am all for equal rights, just don't support the begging culture that seems to be developing, and the excuse is it's for the children. As said earlier , we could all do with a few more quid, I wouldn't try and get my extra few quid by attempting to reduce what the goverment say I should pay, as long as the goverment does not make it not worth my while going to work then I continue without resistance, even if it means not seeing the child as mummy would lose money from the csa :rotfl:

catenorfolk

It all just boils down to the fact that some parents want to support their kids and some dont - and this war will always be ongoing. No-one will ever agree on this topic.

DUTR

catenorfolk wrote: »

It all just boils down to the fact that some parents want to support their kids and some dont - and this war will always be ongoing. No-one will ever agree on this topic.

Well I understand that, and without bias, it seems the OP is the one creating the war, the NRP in the case is contributing, that is fact, however it is not to the liking of the PWC OP, who wants more and more, even though she was overpaid to start with, if the NRP is living so well in luxury, then why not swap responsibilties?
Oh no, of course that would not be possible, who has ever heard of females paying eing chased and all the sanctions being applied? Indeed theremust be some, but this a place you won't see it, frankly, the OP ought to start cutting more hrs at work and stop depending on the state and the ex (who has now moved on) .

kelloggs36

DUTR wrote: »

If the appeal against departure is made in favour, can the nrp appeal against that appeal decision seems to be a lot of appealing going on which all takes time and costs

Only on a point of law, ie that the chairperson misinterpreted the law and applied it incorrectly.

kelloggs36

DUTR wrote: »

How do you know if she helps towards the housing costs? If I moved somebody stayed at mine overnight whether it be one or 7 nights a week they are their as my guests , so may not necessarily be contributing.
Whether the buses run late at night after his shift or not, late night buses are not always the safest place to be, I know at our place if a shift finishes after a certain time then public transport as in trains and buses are not expected to be used, how much difference is 5 taxis or 2.5 taxis a week really going to make? Could you not link up with a rich new partner?

If somebody lives in a house, then unless they are not working it would be fair to assume that they are contributing towards the costs of living there - otherwise it is entirely unfair on the other party to pay for everything whilst their partner keeps all the cash.

kelloggs36

So who pays for the actual cost of raising the children when the NRP contributes only £6.10 per week? The children only get that £6.10 per week to cover all their costs - oh dear they will starve to death. No, it is the PWC who coughs up and makes hell of a lot more financial sacrifice than the NRP - PWCs who work that is. How do you know that the NRP pays for all the costs of bringing up this child? You don't.

DUTR

kelloggs36 wrote: »

So who pays for the actual cost of raising the children when the NRP contributes only £6.10 per week? The children only get that £6.10 per week to cover all their costs - oh dear they will starve to death. No, it is the PWC who coughs up and makes hell of a lot more financial sacrifice than the NRP - PWCs who work that is. How do you know that the NRP pays for all the costs of bringing up this child? You don't.

Where on earth are you both getting this £6.10 from? or is it just to highlight the argument, there was an overpayment which has to be re-paid, so the PWC coughs up, where is the PWC getting all the money from? FROM BENEFITS, who is paying for the benefits? YOU & I .
.