My ex is taking our 17 year old daughter away for a fortnight

kelloggs36

If a PWC makes a claim then the CSA are bound to deal with it - they don't ask why they are claiming!

shell_542

Wouldn't it be a idea if they insisted on a PWC and NRP to try a private agreement first, for the first couple of months, then if showed satisfactory proof by the NRP that they are making the payments leave it as a private agreement (if they don't, then set up the CSA case?)... all those cases which could easily be done between the PWC and NRP without the CSA's involvement would be freeing up valuable money and resources for them to focus on the NRP's who are actually refusing/ being difficult when paying.

nadine273

shell_542 wrote: »

The CSA can and HAVE broken up NRP's families.
Wedding vows: for the better or for worse

I am not particularly fond of the CSA but to blame them to break up marriages is nonsensical

And just because your ex told his new partner lies about you, doesn't mean all NRP's do that. Many NRP's partner's have witnessed it first hand while in their new relationships.
Your anger is blinding you because I have NEVER said all men were liars.

(And for the record, I know there are plenty of !rseholio NRP's out there, but there are some PWC's too)
Never said all parent with care are whiter than white.
Some are plain greedy. Others feel so angry after the break up of their marriage that they will do anything to get back at their ex-husband.

Most parents with care have genuine reasons to turn to the CSA for help. It is of my opinion that if people start contacting the CSA merely because they wish to get back at their husband's ex-wives it will only add on to the workload of the CSA.

If your husband/boyfriend's ex-wife is as bad as you say then don't you realise that by being so angry (as well as all the sleepness nights and arguments with husband/boyfriend) you are playing right into her hand (so to speak)?

If she is that bad then isn't it about time that you show her that no matter what she throws at you and your husband/boyfriend it will not break you but make you stronger.

A true union between two persons cannot be broken by anybody else but ourselves.

nadine273

kelloggs36 wrote: »

If a PWC makes a claim then the CSA are bound to deal with it - they don't ask why they are claiming!

John never asked me why I wanted to make a claim.
It was I who told him I wished to make a claim because it was my right to do so even though I intended on paying back the money to my partner.

I called the CSA to prove a point (for those who do not know what i am talking about please read my previous posts on this thread):
If one feels they have a right to make a claim despite not wanting the money and then claim that what they are doing is not a criminal offense they should then be entirely honest with the CSA by letting them know that once the money is paid to them it will then be reimbursed to the non-resident parent.

Surely, if one claim to be within their right then one will want to be entirely honest with the CSA.

You seem to have worked with the CSA so tell me:
You receive a phone call from a parent with care who wishes to make a claim.
You then spend time (and the tax payers monies) to retrieve money from the non-resident parent.
You then find out that as soon as the parent with care receives the money she immediately pays it back to the non-resident parent.

Would you think:
A) Don't care. It is the tax payers monies!
Crikey! I am a tax payer!
C) Something is not right. Either the woman is mentally impaired or she is helping her husband to commit fraud.

The CSA should only be contacted when there is no other ways to make a private arrangement with the non-resident parent.
To contact the CSA for any other reasons is to commit deception.
To deliberately deceive a governmental agency is a punishable crime.

LizzieS_2

SoontobePWCduetoCSA wrote: »

How am I being vindictive, she has destroyed my marriage with her greed. She's had a house mortgage free in the divorce settlement + maintenance payments. She has remarried, gone on to have 2 further children, remortgaged the house to do a fancy loft conversion, have fitted bedroom furniture, put in a new bathroom and kitchen and up to last year went on holiday 3 times a year. She has now just bought a caravan.
She refuses to acknowledge the shared care + numerous other things meaning we have a massive arrears bill since it took years for them to sort out (only reduced slightly as he was paying ongoing maintance)

She has this that and the other, so what? You have her ex and should be happy with him rather than angry at what she has.

Also how am I being vindictive, when we move apart I'm entitled to go to the CSA and claim my share.
Because I choose not to take the money because like her I can afford to support our child financially I don't understand how that makes me vindictive.
Time is more important than money and I would prefer my husband to spend time with the child and have the money to be able to treat him as and when he wants to, not worry how he is going to put food on the table when he visits.

If you can afford to support your child yourself then your husband had very little financial contribution requirements to add for his keep - seems strange you blame the ex when by your own admission he didn't need to pay much towards your current household

I'm afraid your posts do come across as being bitter by comparing yourself to the ex. Looks like she moved onto a better life - are you sure you will also meet a knight in shining armour?

kelloggs36

She is not doing anything wrong by expecting yours/her ex to to contribute towards the costs of their children - you choose not to, good for you, but she has the RIGHT to, as do you. If you choose not to exercise that right, and she chooses to excercise hers you have nothing to complain about. Her new partner is obviously comfortable hence her current lifestyle - that has nothing to do with you and your situation.

kelloggs36

nadine273 wrote: »

John never asked me why I wanted to make a claim.
It was I who told him I wished to make a claim because it was my right to do so even though I intended on paying back the money to my partner.

I called the CSA to prove a point (for those who do not know what i am talking about please read my previous posts on this thread):
If one feels they have a right to make a claim despite not wanting the money and then claim that what they are doing is not a criminal offense they should then be entirely honest with the CSA by letting them know that once the money is paid to them it will then be reimbursed to the non-resident parent.

Surely, if one claim to be within their right then one will want to be entirely honest with the CSA.

You seem to have worked with the CSA so tell me:
You receive a phone call from a parent with care who wishes to make a claim.
You then spend time (and the tax payers monies) to retrieve money from the non-resident parent.
You then find out that as soon as the parent with care receives the money she immediately pays it back to the non-resident parent.

Would you think:
A) Don't care. It is the tax payers monies!
Crikey! I am a tax payer!
C) Something is not right. Either the woman is mentally impaired or she is helping her husband to commit fraud.

The CSA should only be contacted when there is no other ways to make a private arrangement with the non-resident parent.
To contact the CSA for any other reasons is to commit deception.
To deliberately deceive a governmental agency is a punishable crime.

You told him that you had no intentions of keeping the money so he judged that it was a pointless exercise - they are snowed under as it is, without having to deal with these types of calls! Nobody would usually make a claim and then state from the outset that they don't intend to keep the money - in fact, they wouldn't even bother claiming. It isn't a criminal offence to claim and return the money - the money is the PWC's to do whatever they want with it, so if they are on good terms with their ex, they can indeed return it to them. It would be a very rare situation, and one which I would suspect would involve a partial rather than full refund. The woman may not think that the figure set by the CSA is totally fair - it is arbitary isn't it? It is a fixed formula which she may feel is harsh on the NRP, so she wants to give some back. There would however be a fraudulent situation whereby an existing PWC is claiming and then the new partner colludes with her partner to get the case reduced so that they pay less - if there is evidence of this then yes, this would indeed be a criminal offence and should be punished. We don't know what the situation is.

shell_542

nadine273 wrote: »

Most parents with care have genuine reasons to turn to the CSA for help. It is of my opinion that if people start contacting the CSA merely because they wish to get back at their husband's ex-wives it will only add on to the workload of the CSA.

If your husband/boyfriend's ex-wife is as bad as you say then don't you realise that by being so angry (as well as all the sleepness nights and arguments with husband/boyfriend) you are playing right into her hand (so to speak)?

If she is that bad then isn't it about time that you show her that no matter what she throws at you and your husband/boyfriend it will not break you but make you stronger.

A true union between two persons cannot be broken by anybody else but ourselves.

You're doing it again with the generalisations. :rotfl:

Where on earth have I demonstrated on this thread that I am angry? Where have I said on this thread that I hate my partner's ex??? My partner doesn't have an ex! You have no idea of my situation. My husband have never said anything to sl!g off his daughter's mother to me.

My H and his daughter's mother have a private agreement. BUT when intial contact was started the first words out of her mouth were "Well I'm going to the CSA" BECAUSE unfortunately some PWC's do go striaght down the route with threats of the CSA hoping to deter the NRP from pursuing contact. I have read it on many "Child support" "Lone Parents" Single Mum's" forums. It's used as a tool, just like sometimes when a PWC asks (righfully so) for child support from a NRP and their instant reaction is "Well I'm taking you to court for full custody".

The bottom line of it is that the CSA can ask for amounts that a NRP can't afford. Then the children (if any) in the NRP's family can be left without or in poverty. Why is that OK?

I actually see it from both sides of the fence. I'm not an evil NRP's partner who thinks all PWC's are moneygrabbing c!wbags. But please don't assume just because I occasionally stick up for NRP's affected by the CSA's poor systems, that I am all one sided.

shell_542

nadine273 wrote: »

The CSA should only be contacted when there is no other ways to make a private arrangement with the non-resident parent.
To contact the CSA for any other reasons is to commit deception.
To deliberately deceive a governmental agency is a punishable crime.

This was the point I was making. We seem to be arguing the same thing here. The CSA is not only contacted when a private agreement is not possible though. It is a shame,

SoontobePWCduetoCSA

Well I have contacted the CSA and didn't use a private/throw away number and asked for advice.

I was told that I shouldn't use the CSA if I was coming to a private arrangement to start with.
I was told what I did with the money once I received it, was my business and not their concern.
When I asked would the private arrangement (whether or not I took the money) would be taken into account when working out his liability elsewhere I was told NO.
When asked what they recommended I do they said put a claim in for the liability to be assessed and go on direct pay and you never know when your circumstances will change and I may want them to collect the money on my behalf and it can't be backdated. That unless the other parent with care would have a private arrangement then to make sure each child was treated fairly they advised that both PWC's were registered under the CSA.

So no I didn't get laughed at, the woman on the other end of the line completely understood the situation, even checked with her 'line manager' on the policies/rules.

Lizzie - your comment - If you can afford to support your child yourself then your husband had very little financial contribution requirements to add for his keep - seems strange you blame the ex when by your own admission he didn't need to pay much towards your current household

Nope I have my own income. I never said he didn't need to pay much towards our current household. Everything was split down the middle or he paid more as he is the higher earner.
Just because I can afford to pay for my share does not mean in any shape or form that he doesn't pay for his own keep. Thats a very bias attitude.