Ex-wife losing the plot

Blonde_Bint

CMAC wrote: »

"A person who has consistently paid for their children should never be made to feel they are not providing."

If the withhold the payment pending a csa assesment then they are not providing for there child. I dont understand your comment

Are you deliberately being facetious.

If payment is made, month after month over a period of time, then this period of time is called into question lots of people on this board can verify that you will pay AGAIN for monies already paid if you cannot verify to the CSA's goal post moving satisfaction, are you saying thats what is right. An NRP should risk paying twice when all he has to do is cover his ar se is keeping the payments to one side, then when the time is right and he is asked all above board and proveable hand the money over at this point.

You must do what is right in your circumstance but for me, I would keep the money and hand it over when the time is right. She may have a tough time for a while, but the NRP will suffer later if he has to pay twice.

only he can decide what he's going to do. I know what I would do.

smartpicture

marksoton wrote: »

With all due respect i suspect you have not experienced the way the CSA treat these matters.

I think that's a fair comment, as my experience is only second-hand, and there are other people who can give proper advice on how the CSA will behave and how to deal with that. I was simply trying to give an alternative viewpoint on the effect on the children, that seemed to have been ignored in the more practical answers. Any loving father (as the OP clearly appears to be) would want to consider both factors, I think.

marksoton wrote: »

For a payment to be accepted by the CSA they will generally expect the PWC to verify it.

Isn't the usual advice to pay by a traceable method, clearly marked with what it is for? If what you say is true, that is clearly shocking and open to abuse.

marksoton wrote: »

any temporary shortage of money is completely down to the choice of the PWC.

This could be argued, but what is indisputable is that the "temporary shortage of money" is not the choice of the children who will inevitably suffer from a sudden drop in income to the household, however justified it may be.


As far as the OP goes, I think he's behaving perfectly reasonably in paying for his children but trying to make sure he doesn't get ripped off by an angry ex or an inefficient system.

marksoton

smartpicture wrote: »

I think that's a fair comment, as my experience is only second-hand, and there are other people who can give proper advice on how the CSA will behave and how to deal with that. I was simply trying to give an alternative viewpoint on the effect on the children, that seemed to have been ignored in the more practical answers. Any loving father (as the OP clearly appears to be) would want to consider both factors, I think.

Problem is the CSA are clinical and do not care for such sentiments.

Isn't the usual advice to pay by a traceable method, clearly marked with what it is for? If what you say is true, that is clearly shocking and open to abuse.

Indeed it is. And it happens frequently.

This could be argued, but what is indisputable is that the "temporary shortage of money" is not the choice of the children who will inevitably suffer from a sudden drop in income to the household, however justified it may be.

Granted but the PWC has chosen this route.It is after all their household

As far as the OP goes, I think he's behaving perfectly reasonably in paying for his children but trying to make sure he doesn't get ripped off by an angry ex or an inefficient system.
So do i. Which is why he has received the advice he has.

I really wish what you suggest could happen more often.

kelloggs36

Having worked for the CSA I can categorically state that unless the PWC agrees that money has been paid to them AND agrees that it was for maintenance, then the CSA will NOT accept it as such - regardless of what is on a bank statement because it is very simple to put whatever reference you want to on a standing order, and that money may NOT have actually been maintenance but some other monies due. This is why the CSA need verification from the PWC that it was indeed maintenance. Hence advice to stop paying until the CSA ask for the money - there have been so many NRPs who have been caught out this way.

LizzieS_2

When so many nrps complain about how the csa treat them, should we really be encouraging another nrp to potentially be caught in the reassessment every few weeks trap, errors, mistakes etc

irishgirl62

As for how long the CSA takes my case with the CSA is now in its 5th Month and no I am not a greedy ex wife been seperated for four years struggled with our four kids and the straw that broke my back was we had no oil in March and my ex refused to give me 100 quid to get some the first time I ever asked him for money while he jetted off to the sun with his new partner and her kids.

He has never ever paid a penny towards our kids and me for a quiet life decided I could get by without his help until the "oil" incident happened

Zara33

irishgirl62 wrote: »

As for how long the CSA takes my case with the CSA is now in its 5th Month and no I am not a greedy ex wife been seperated for four years struggled with our four kids and the straw that broke my back was we had no oil in March and my ex refused to give me 100 quid to get some the first time I ever asked him for money while he jetted off to the sun with his new partner and her kids.

He has never ever paid a penny towards our kids and me for a quiet life decided I could get by without his help until the "oil" incident happened

Ahhhh the quiet life, if only it would stay that way for a long time...never does though.

CMAC_2

marksoton wrote: »

Yes. It seems to be common place for the NRP to have to go above the burden of proof. I suspect this is because quite often it is easier for caseworkers to take this stance.



The MEF sets an effective date for the NRP. Any money they pay in the interim between the MEF and a payment schedule must be verified by the PWC. If it is not the CSA will treat it as arrears.

In this case GG would best protect himself by stopping payment to the PWC. If she denies payment he will face an uphill struggle to prove otherwise.

Sorry if I have not got my point across let me try again A simple phone call to the CSA requesting a Default payment allows a individual to make a direct payment to the CSA pending an assessment. Thats why the legislation exists. I fully understand your point and yes it is a uphill struggle if the NRP makes direct payments to the PWC in respect of child support payments and they say they have not recieved any monies, but from my experiance if the NRP can show on a bank statement and like I said in my previous post it is anotated IPP there is action open to them to either recover the monies or get the CSA to accept the payments.

CMAC_2

Blonde_Bint wrote: »

Are you deliberately being facetious.

No not at all I think I just did not make myself clear please see my post above.

Blonde_Bint

kelloggs36 wrote: »

Having worked for the CSA I can categorically state that unless the PWC agrees that money has been paid to them AND agrees that it was for maintenance, then the CSA will NOT accept it as such - regardless of what is on a bank statement because it is very simple to put whatever reference you want to on a standing order, and that money may NOT have actually been maintenance but some other monies due. This is why the CSA need verification from the PWC that it was indeed maintenance. Hence advice to stop paying until the CSA ask for the money - there have been so many NRPs who have been caught out this way.

OK CMAC i'm not having a go at you at all. its just that on here i've read so many times of pwc denying monies paid apologies:o sometimes it can run into the thousands:eek: and worse no matter what proof the NRP thought he had the CSA were not interested. We are in no way saying that payment should stop and never be given, just that you should keep payments aside and at the correct time when you are covered hand it over then. if you had been on the recieving end of this particular CSA trick you would be singing in harmany.

read Kelloggs post again slowly, every words is absolutely true. very very scary but true :eek: problem is I suppose the CSA dont know whos lying and who isnt do they as cr*p as they are they are not Mystic Meg I suppose:p. Handing over the money at the correct time is the best way unfortunate as that may seem. Probably for everyone involved.