csa have finally made a new assessment but what happens now?

shell_542

Some employers have also adjusted an employees wages so that more is counted as expenses etc, and then less can be used to pay maintenance.

Although I can't imagine many companies doing this, unless they are small companies, where the boss is friendly with the NRP and sorts out the wages himself. I can just imagine the response if my husband went to his payroll department and said "when you action the thousands of employees wages every month, will you go specially into mine and adjust it all so I come out with less net pay" :rotfl:

Icey

Blob wrote: »

Sorry I did not jump jobs, and they have elected to fight, so be it I will fight, even if it is to a level that they did not think pos! What a shame!

The Tax payer paid for my training so now they can live with it!

Please dont beieve that every NRP ' dangles' the PWC as it is very often the other way round!

Of course I believe that there are many decent NRP's, and I from what I have read on here some of them have been screwed by the csa.

But there are also loads more who don't want to pay a thing, and that's why it's there in first place.

I got the csa involved around 4 years ago, when my sons father decided that he didn't think he should pay me any maintenance. In that time, i've had a couple of fivers off him when he was signing on, and that's been it.

It's only since I contacted the csa again at the beginning of the year, and have been at them every week that they've finally found his employer and made an assessment.

In an ideal world there would be no CSA as fathers would want to have an active role in their children's life, and contribute to their upbringing, but that's not the case.

Icey

enemes wrote: »

In my case, my ex was getting 16 hours a week through the books, and the rest was cash in hand for a 38 hour week.

Oh right, I see. Thanks.

So even though his employer has told the csa his wage details, when it came to deo, they could change it?

enemes

Icey wrote: »

In an ideal world there would be no CSA as fathers would want to have an active role in their children's life, and contribute to their upbringing, but that's not the case.

It applies to some mothers too.

enemes

Icey wrote: »

So even though his employer has told the csa his wage details, when it came to deo, they could change it?

Assumptions!! I claim from the CSA off the kids' mother, who incidently works within the NHS!

shell_542

Icey wrote: »

Of course I believe that there are many decent NRP's, and I from what I have read on here some of them have been screwed by the csa.

But there are also loads more who don't want to pay a thing, and that's why it's there in first place.

I got the csa involved around 4 years ago, when my sons father decided that he didn't think he should pay me any maintenance. In that time, i've had a couple of fivers off him when he was signing on, and that's been it.

It's only since I contacted the csa again at the beginning of the year, and have been at them every week that they've finally found his employer and made an assessment.

In an ideal world there would be no CSA as fathers would want to have an active role in their children's life, and contribute to their upbringing, but that's not the case.

Very true and in that ideal world some PWC would be happy for their children to have a healthy relationship with their non resident parent and wouldn't see it as a way of financing their lifestyle and getting back at their ex's and in turn, their ex's new families.

It's just a shame that because of some NRP's who do all they can to avoid their responsibilities, all NRP's are lumped under one catergory and in very, many cases end up being at the hands of a system that are only really interested in making their figures seem good at the end of the year and don't care if they are demanding sums a family cannot afford.

shell_542

And yes, I refuse to use "Mother's are being shafted when father's don't own up to their responsibilities" because there are many cases of it being the other way around. Not all mother's are innocent.

enemes

shell_542 wrote: »

And yes, I refuse to use "Mother's are being shafted when father's don't own up to their responsibilities" because there are many cases of it being the other way around. Not all mother's are innocent.

"Here Here!!"

enemes

Or is it "Hear Hear!" ?

shell_542

I believe it is hear hear :rotfl: