CS1 Departures Help

Blob

Peopel dont agree with the system as it is fundermentally flawed and is seen to be so! I agree that £6.10 wont go very far, but if that is all there is in the kitty well so be it. The other side of the coin is that it dose not cost £160 a week to keep two children either, and I have been asked for this. The Govenment in its wisdon tells us that an adult couple can get by on less than this, so how is it that two children need that much. If I was still with my ex then you can bet that they would not get this. Then if you take it that it is half of what is needed as is a fair stand point it will not cost £320 a week for two kids either, families live on less than this and pay a mortguage, that is were the problem lies! The pasieved fairness of the system or lack of it.

The tax payer is not responsible for paying for the children we produce either, neither is just one parent, BOTH parents have an equal responsibility for the children. The overriding factor is that for a parent to be able to take that responsibility they first have to be able to support themselves, and a lot of people forget this point and I also accept that it is manipulated by people to show they cant.

As an option it may be an idea to 'Means Test' the assesment before it is put in place. This may go some way to releave some of the problems the system causes. However in this case if what the OP has said is true and I have no reason to think other wise this may not be helpful and I unequivently accept this, but it is an option.

DUTR

kelloggs36 wrote: »

The OP is hardly milking the OP if she gets only £6.10 per week. The PWC still has to pay for ongoing costs of the children - even if there was an overpayment £35 per week still doesn't cover half the costs, yet the PWC has to pick up the bill for the past and present. The NRP is the one milking it - by not declaring their true situation, they are ensuring that they contribute the bare minimum towards children they helped to create.

To the OP, ask the CSA for a new assessment, or you have a choice to ask for them to close the case, wait for 13 weeks and then reclaim whereby you will get a % of the NRP wages with no housing costs taken into account. If you PM me with your last assessment details I will advise further.

I get fed up with PWCs being slated for trying to do their best to bring up children with little or no help from NRPs who want to move on with no backwards glance. It is tough financially, but that difficulty should not just fall on PWCs. Yes, NRPs should be able to move on to a certain extent, but they should never be allowed to not contribute towards their own children - ever and if it is difficult, well that is the way it is when you have children. Don't have more until you can pay for the ones you have.

CS1 is notorious for dishing out nil assessments - try under CS2 he may have to contribute more fairly then - his partner's details won't matter either.

It's not £6.10 per week, the OP is paying back an overpayment.
Yes I agree and was suprised the ploy of closing the case and re-opening it later for the 15% net option was not offered, however I wouldn't know how that stands if a case can be closed whilst over payment has to be refunded.
The NRP is contributing, and a large element of the OPs post is to do with the NRP has a live in partner, as said earlier if I let somebody move in does not mean they have to contribute, my heating and electric is on, irrespective of how many people are in the house, so it's not as if certain bills would increase other than council tax and grocery.
I understand why you get fed up with PWCs getting slated, I disagree that seeking financial support is the only and best way to achieve the best for their children.
i don't comend nrps not contributing, but I still think the sums are unfairand for every night the child stays with the NRP, 2 nights CS should be deducted after all the CS should be both ways should it not?

DUTR

weejay6000 wrote: »

Hi kelloggs36,

tried to PM you but your inbox is full

Thanks

Yes , help is needed in answering DUTRs unanswered questions, especially reffering to the ops original post quote" Money is tight as I only work 2 days per week and I sometimes struggle to get my child watched."
yet pays/mortgage or rent from a salary, raise a child , grocery , energy bills, PI to spy on the nrp etc that 2 days working may reward

Blob

If it pays that much, can I have a job there?

kelloggs36

weejay6000 wrote: »

Hi kelloggs36,

tried to PM you but your inbox is full

Thanks

Have sorted that now - pm away!

PlayingHardball

Weejay - it seems to me there are lots of bitter nrp out there like DUTR who don't want to do the right thing by their own children. If your ex has someone else contributing to household expenses, why should that 'someone' have a free ride at the expense your child and the nrp's child?

Good luck, I hope you get a reassessment based on the new financial facts and figures as stated in your op.

kelloggs36

Absolutely PlayingHardball - well said.

DUTR

PlayingHardball wrote: »

Weejay - it seems to me there are lots of bitter nrp out there like DUTR who don't want to do the right thing by their own children. If your ex has someone else contributing to household expenses, why should that 'someone' have a free ride at the expense your child and the nrp's child?

Good luck, I hope you get a reassessment based on the new financial facts and figures as stated in your op.

I dod do the right thing, I pay up and promptly, whatever is done won't be good enough for some PWC's who post that NRPs should be locked up even though they pay their contribution, this poster is not bitter at all otherwise I would be seeking to avoid reduce payment. :cool: