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

LizzieS_2

SoontobePWCduetoCSA wrote: »

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.

What you said was that you can afford to support yourself and child - that interprets your husband does not need to make a large financial contribution. Whether it is fair or not, was not the point - the point was you are letting the ex ruin your relationship when you can afford not to.

I'm not particularly interested whether you take the csa or not, I just find it strange that you are so bitter towards the ex - If her lifestyle is as good as you say then the reduction in csa is not going to change that. The point I'm trying to make is that the only person you are punishing is yourself and your child - I commend your thoughts over how your ex will be able to pay for outings for all his children, but that is actually at the expense of your child not having their father living with them.

seven-day-weekend

To get back to the OP, I don't see why he has to pay full maintenance as well as taking the young person on holiday. I certainly think it should be reduced. The PWC will not have to feed them or clothe them or do their washing etc for that two weeks.

Also, if the PWC is on Benefits, they don't even have the maintenance classed as income - so it is extra money for them anyway.

My friend who is officially the NRP (although he has the children just as much as their mother does) has to maintain a three-bedroomed house with all its associated costs so that his children can stay. It's not just the PWC who has to do this.

Caz3121

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

To get back to the OP, I don't see why he has to pay full maintenance as well as taking the young person on holiday. I certainly think it should be reduced. The PWC will not have to feed them or clothe them or do their washing etc for that two weeks.

Also, if the PWC is on Benefits, they don't even have the maintenance classed as income - so it is extra money for them anyway.

My friend who is officially the NRP (although he has the children just as much as their mother does) has to maintain a three-bedroomed house with all its associated costs so that his children can stay. It's not just the PWC who has to do this.

I know where you are coming from but most things side with the PWC. In our case she has a 3 bed rented, we have a 3 bed rented, she receives CB, tax credits and maintenance (to a level that when son wanted to move in with us she stopped it as she could not afford to lose £600+ per month) We took the children on holiday for a week last year she didn't even give them £1 spends. Son stayed with her father (his grandfather) for 2 months including 3 weeks abroad and she expected us to give her father money for his keep (as well as her receiving maintenance etc) we pay £200 each time for visits (flights from other end of the country) she "charges" to drop them off pick them up at airport (petrol and parking!) and today got the usual text...you need to pay for all their school uniform!
Looks like a number of the PWC on here, whilst maybe not taking a reduction would give a few £'s back to the children/parent ... unfortunately we don't have one of those

laurenjs88

Caz3121 wrote: »

I know where you are coming from but most things side with the PWC. In our case she has a 3 bed rented, we have a 3 bed rented, she receives CB, tax credits and maintenance (to a level that when son wanted to move in with us she stopped it as she could not afford to lose £600+ per month) We took the children on holiday for a week last year she didn't even give them £1 spends. Son stayed with her father (his grandfather) for 2 months including 3 weeks abroad and she expected us to give her father money for his keep (as well as her receiving maintenance etc) we pay £200 each time for visits (flights from other end of the country) she "charges" to drop them off pick them up at airport (petrol and parking!) and today got the usual text...you need to pay for all their school uniform!
Looks like a number of the PWC on here, whilst maybe not taking a reduction would give a few £'s back to the children/parent ... unfortunately we don't have one of those

Thats pretty harsh Caz! makes me really angry when PWC's are like that! It's only the kids that lose out when one parent is greedy like that!

Vice versa with the NRP being a muppet too, dependant on the situation...

nadine273

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

Did you expect me to give them my name and number?
Remember, when I called I pretented to be you, a bitter you!

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.
Did you tell them what you told us? That is that the only reason for you to make a claim is not because you need the money but because you want your husband's ex to get half the maintenance she is getting at present?
Come on, you told us it was your right to do so, so why not tell them the truth?
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.
Very unusual since your husband could get reassessed if he can prove that money paid to you is for child maintenance. Read the threads on this forum (I read all of them) and you will find out that a non-resident parent can have his claim reassessed if genuine documents shown to the CSA prove that the payments are child maintenancepayments.
You will also find out that maintenance paid to the husband's ex will be phased out, i.e. she will keep receiving the same amount for a while (in fact a very long while -sorry cannot remember for how long so you will have to check for yourself)
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.
The only reason she did not ask you to get your head checked by your doctor is because you were not woman enough to be entirely honest about your reason for claiming.

Many posters have claimed that their husband's ex have put in a claim even though the ex was being paid through a private arrangement.
Well that is totally unacceptable because it shows pure dishonesty with regards to the reason for claiming.

Yes I know that the CSA is not there to ask us why we wish to make a claim, and that is simply because we are expected to make genuine claims.

A parent with care who receives maintenance via a private arrangement and then make a claim via the CSA without telling them that she is already in receipt of child maintenance made via a private arrangement is not making a genuine claim, and thus is a dishonest person.

A parent with care who wish to make a claim not because she needs the money but because she is being consummed by hate and vengeance is not making a genuine claim, and thus is dishonest person.


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.
You have claimed to earn enough money to enable you to not only take care of yourself and your child without his financial help but also to give him the monies you receive from child benefit and child credit and according to you he happens to be the highest earner:
Then why all the fuss about her being loaded but not you?
According to you, you are loaded!
Most importantly why claim that it is poverty caused by the CSA that is pushing you away from your husband when it appears that you are not broke.
Can I ask you a question?
Are you in fact still with your husband but wishing for the CSA to think otherwise?
I hope you are not because that would not make you any better than the woman who get private payments but still contact the CSA.
Just remember: if you do what you are planning to do the ex will keep on receiving the same amount for quite some time (research "phased out payments" or ask Kellogs)

And before you comeback barking at me:
No, I am not siding with all parents with care.
I lived with a man for many years and his ex wife was not the nicest person on earth. She was paid via a private arrangement, and also had her bills paid for 18 months because apparently since he was the man it was is duty to do so.
Did I bang my head against the walls?
No!
In fact I did not allow him to pay my bills for 18 months even though he was living with me.
Her little war with him was between the two of them.
Never did I lost sleep because of it.

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.
I do not think she meant to be bias. It just that you appear to have so much money that you are prepared to give him child maintenance, child benefit, and child tax credit.
He does sound like you are the "head" of the family.

Be happy that your husband's ex has found for herself a lovely new partner who can take care of her.
Isn't it what most women want?
Aren't we all worth it?

Stop being so angry because each minute you spend hating her good fortune is a minute lost.
Your turn will come eventually.

nadine273

kelloggs36 wrote: »

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!
Yes, you are right! They are snowed under as you say.
But since "Soontobepwcagainbecauseofcsa" claimed that she could legally make a claim even though she intends on paying the money back to her husband, I thought I would call the CSA to prove a point: if one claims that what she does is legal then one should tell the CSA why they are claiming instead of having the CSA assuming that her claim is genuine.

You have previously said that the CSA does not ask us why we wish to make a claim.
That is simply because it is assumed that all claims are genuine.


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.
A honest person would not bother to make a claim.
A bitter person would! Sad isn't it.

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.
This is why if a private arrangement can be made then there is no point calling the CSA.

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.
It is really fantastic that some women are prepared to accept only a fair amount.
Generally those women have a private arrangement with the father of their child.
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.
Yes we do know what the situation is!!!

"SoonToBePWCAgainBecauseOfCSA" did state that her only reason for wanting to make a claim IS because she wants the ex to get less maintenance and this is why she will be returning all monies to her husband.
So I guess we both agree that it IS a criminal offence.

To be honest, now I feel kind of stupid for calling the CSA and pretending to be SoonToBe.... If she wishes to spend the rest of her life hating a woman who has got on with her life then that is her problem.
Whatever criminal offence she wishes to commit out of spite for her husband's ex will be on her conscience not mine.

Madzolla:

Sorry for Hijacking your thread just to prove a point. Hope you have found a solution to your dilemma.

LizzieS_2

nadine273 wrote: »

Are you in fact still with your husband but wishing for the CSA to think otherwise?

I must admit, I wondered that too as the story just doesn't add up.

She does come across as a bitter pwc but not making any real sense as to why.

I'm still struggling with my conscience over my daughters request - she wanted an item that is overpriced. My elder daughter had things like it, I bought my step-daughter something extremely similar, I could afford to buy my daughter the item. I guess Santa will make sure it is in her sack at xmas.

Caz3121

laurenjs88 wrote: »

Thats pretty harsh Caz! makes me really angry when PWC's are like that! It's only the kids that lose out when one parent is greedy like that!

Vice versa with the NRP being a muppet too, dependant on the situation...

thanks
daughter going back down south today after being here for 2 weeks, already had the abusive texts to send her with money as she is not using "my money" to pick her up and a rant about how £500 per month maintenance does not pay all her rent, food and expenses.

How do people cope with contact. Ex previously moved abroad so OH had to either fly over collect the children then do same on return. This went on for 3 years, when she moved back to UK it has still been if you want to see them you are responsible for collecting them and returning at your expense. Is this normal?

It is not really about the money (although he doesn't have the spare she seems to think he does, her income with tax credits and maintenance etc hers is higher than his) but the fact she seems to resent the children having a good relationship with their father and wanting to spend time with him. Whilst she lived with her then-boyfriend in house with pool abroad she told OH he should either continue living with parents or in a bedsit so he was able to carry on giving her £1000 a month (at 40 he was not even allowed a cheap 1 bedroom flat with him on the sofa when the children visited!)

I know it sounds bitter but I really think it is only when the children are older and leave that she will realise there is still rent and bills to pay for herself and there will be no-one handing her money.

I know that being a single parent is hard work and children cost a lot to bring up as I have been there myself (even when married I had a lazy ex who did not work so I was the breadwinner doing some realy bad jobs to pay the bills with no help apart from child benefit)

He has always paid maintenance (even when he was off sick and went on to half pay I payed half) The consent order was based on the CSA calculation without any allowances for travel costs.

Son comes up next week and think we are going to give him the busfare to get to the airport. It is horrible for the children to be in the middle of this. They have even commented that dad never says anything nasty about mum (believe me there is plenty but she is their mother!) but mum says horrible things about dad all the time.

Blonde_Bint

Carry on saying nothing, the kids will remember all this when they are grown up. She cant take back the things she said:D

As for contact. We have always picked up and dropped off we dont get anything deducted for costs incurred c'est la vie we live about an hour a way so its not too bad for us. but its a 2 hour round trip plus extra time for jams and road works:rotfl: but she wouldnt drop him off or collect him.

frugallass

jamespir wrote: »

well it just proves how greedy you are and a vindictive cow you are to

what an attitude you have its people like you that cause this situation with the csa im so glad im not married to anyone like you:mad:

Greedy - for his poxy £26 a week - I don't think so sweetheart !

I'm not vindictive at all - just playing him at his own game

Now grow up and stop the name calling !