i have posted this on reply to other thread but please read

Blob

You see the CSA has succeded in thier aim, they have you so mixedup you give up and then they can do what they want! If they dont confuse the issue then they are accountable, and that is the last thing that they want. So they make confusion it is that simple!

LizzieS_2

Blob wrote: »

To take money that dose not belong to the NRP and would not be available if the NRP was not in the relationship with a person that has children is taking money from those children and as such is thrft.

Giving a reduction for those newly found children is also taking from existing children. The 2 do average out, with some being on the absolute average and others one way or the other.

The rules are there for all and we cannot change them - personally I think the nrps earnings alone should be used and no other children factored in, it would save many a dispute.

Blob

You are wrong, the rules can be changed and I am doing just that, by talking to MP's and getting action taken through Parliment. As the saying goes 'For evil to prevail, the good have to do nothing' or something like that.

Not saying that I am good by the system is eveil and has to be changed before it claims any more lives. In doing that it will be changed peacefully of in the time honured way through fighting. I have tried the first and it did not work, so now I fight, and the time is comming that others will fight in a different way to me. I fight through parliment and the Courts, something your friend does not like, because I am makeing headway. It is only a short time till some of the people that work in the CSA are going to have to answer for thier actions and then, the Tax payer will provide them with a holiday, at Her Magisties Pleasure.

Blonde_Bint

Blob wrote: »

You see the CSA has succeded in thier aim, they have you so mixedup you give up and then they can do what they want! If they dont confuse the issue then they are accountable, and that is the last thing that they want. So they make confusion it is that simple!

No Blob, you do the csa a dis-service, they have turned confusion into an art form:rotfl: and there is nothing simple in how they do it.

Blob

OK you win that one, what can I say!

mrsnem

wouldnt the simple answer be just to take whats entitled from the exs earnings the whole point is that they are making my children suffer which has nothing to do with his ex relationship i will add again my hubby doesnt mind paying for the upkeep of his 2 children what he and i object to is that its not just based on his wages its based on child tax credit i recieve for my own children which after all still need looking after yes we do claim a little housing benefit after all he is on a low wage but atleast he does work we have found out today after much ringning around that we can infact now add this extra amount to our rent housing benefit if we could not god nos what we would do even the lady from the benefits place was shocked so cross fingers hopefully it wont be tomuc of a struggle to keep a roof overmy head . going from75 a month to 288 is such a shock

it is a bad thing for some the csa but good when exs refuse to pay well sometimes if they get there fingers out so to speak

LizzieS_2

mrsnem wrote: »

wouldnt the simple answer be just to take whats entitled from the exs earnings the whole point is that they are making my children suffer which has nothing to do with his ex relationship i will add again my hubby doesnt mind paying for the upkeep of his 2 children what he and i object to is that its not just based on his wages its based on child tax credit i recieve for my own children which after all still need looking after yes we do claim a little housing benefit after all he is on a low wage but atleast he does work we have found out today after much ringning around that we can infact now add this extra amount to our rent housing benefit if we could not god nos what we would do even the lady from the benefits place was shocked so cross fingers hopefully it wont be tomuc of a struggle to keep a roof overmy head . going from75 a month to 288 is such a shock

it is a bad thing for some the csa but good when exs refuse to pay well sometimes if they get there fingers out so to speak

The simple answer would be use just your OH's wages - changes in family on either side should not affect existing known expenses.

Not sure what you are saying about HB. AFAIK, csa received is excluded as income from HB claims, but not the other way round.

mrsnem

what i was toldis that apparetly csa is included in howthey calculate your housing benefit what i mean is how much u have to pay out for maintanence as obviously due to the larger amount they do take it into consdieration when working it out its the only thing i think they do take into account as outgoing expenditure well were going to find out tomorrow as we are off for a little visit down there

LizzieS_2

mrsnem wrote: »

what i was toldis that apparetly csa is included in howthey calculate your housing benefit what i mean is how much u have to pay out for maintanence as obviously due to the larger amount they do take it into consdieration when working it out its the only thing i think they do take into account as outgoing expenditure well were going to find out tomorrow as we are off for a little visit down there

I really do think you have this the wrong way round. Let us know how you get on please.

helpmehelpme

kelloggs36 wrote: »

The point is that the NRP's natural children LOSE OUT, not the step children or the new children.

Why do you always refer to the children of the first relationship as NATURAL and any others NEW children?? Are you saying my child is not Natural?? she has a mam and a dad just like the children to his frist marriage!!

My oh had a 3 year relationship with his ex 20 years ago and had 2 children, we have had a 15 year relationship and only have one child together which I do not think is excessive or being irresponsible.:D