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

LizzieS_2

Life does indeed go on, so you cannot blame an ex for your choices creating less for your new family (applies to nrp & pwc).

Steve40_2

as previously stated most pwc's and nrp's enter into new relationships and the children share in the financial well being so ultimately there are no children missing out.

13Kent

My husband didn't choose to leave his previous family. His ex had a series of affairs and despite trying to hold it together for the children she eventually drove him away. He lost his kids and his home.

Now we have 2 children of our own, and the pwc has 2 children belonging to my husband, and has remarried and has another child too.

I feel angry that our tax credits and our child benefit are included as part of our household income but hers are not.

Ok our children count for 20% of just his income, but why do her children get 30% of his income and our child benefit and tax credits- How come they are worth more than ours? Also she gets her tax credits and child benefit too and despite both her and her husband working they still have NIL income as far as the CSA are concerned.

How come my wages are taken into account but her husband's aren't?

How come on CSA 1 we are paying £600 a month, but on the new system we have been told by a member of the CSA staff surprised at the amount we were paying that he calculated that on the new system we would be paying £288 based on our present circumstances?

We cannot appeal or get put onto the new system.

It is a completely unfair system - roll on the time when we stop paying!

karen24_2

I'm sorry if this offends anyone but I feel I have to give my opinion. When you start a relationship with someone and decide to make a life with them presumably you are aware they have children from a previous relationship. If they then want to go on and have more children or become a step parent to existing children, this does not absolve them of their financial responsibilities to children in a previous relationship. If you cannot afford to pay for both lots of children then perhaps difficult decisions need to be made. As far as saying the other parent has plenty of money so they shouldn't take the money from us, that's completely unfair. Just because they earn more that still doesn't absolve the other parent from financially supporting those children.
Feel free to blast me down, but as a single mum working hard to support her children it annoys me that the father has decided he cannot afford to pay anything as he has lots of outgoings so I expect I will have to go down the csa route myself. However I do feel for those of you who have tried to do the right thing and support your children but have what appears to be a vindictive ex trying to make your life miserable for the sake of it.
Thank you for reading

13Kent

shell_542 wrote: »

The only reason a Pwc wpuld get no tax credits at all would be if they had a household income of over £60,000 a year. The PWC in our case does get tax credits.

And because they recieve tax credits they are deemed to be on a benefit and therefore the CSA say their household income is NIL - they could be earning £59 000 - plus their child benefit and tax credits - far more than us as NRP - but their income is still deemed as NIL and therefore not counted as far as the CSA are concerned. :mad:

13Kent

The CSA system was originally put into place to target those NRPs who didn't want to contribute to the PRC. I wholeheartedly agree with this as they should be targeted. Unfortunately the 1st system was flawed. It allowed for too many loopholes so BOTH sides could abuse the system. In my case my ex-wife came under that category. Despite her illegally claiming benefits (she claimed I had walked out on her and was not paying anything) and telling the CSA I was not paying towards the kids upkeep the CSA took everything she said as verbatim. I had to ask her for the proof I needed to clear half of the £8000 the CSA said I owed her! I paid the mortgage, all utility bills and she still had full access into our bank account. I stopped paying all the bills and switched to the CSA amount ONLY when she threatened to 'use the system to get every penny that I had and ruin me'. I have NEVER defaulted on a payment or paid less than I was asked despite the unfair system. You may say that I am biased, but I also have friends whose partners are PWC and they are having to support them as the CSA has been worked by the NRP. It is the system that is unfair. There should be one system not the 3 currently in force. Can you imagine going in to Tesco and being told you are on CSA 1 so your milk costs £1 you are on CSA 2 so you pay 50p! There are laws against that but apparently all of the CSA systems are legally fine!

Some people say that as a NRP I am no longer to have a life or find happiness again. Does the same apply to the PWC? My ex was with her new partner technically before I was kicked out (she was using my money to support their relationship before I found out). So where do you draw the line? As I said above I support the CSA in their aims but disagree how they go about things. Unfortunately when relationships break down someone gets their feelings hurt and emotions run high. Until the breakup can be dealt with without emotion the system is open to abuse.

kelloggs36

13Kent wrote: »

My husband didn't choose to leave his previous family. His ex had a series of affairs and despite trying to hold it together for the children she eventually drove him away. He lost his kids and his home.

Now we have 2 children of our own, and the pwc has 2 children belonging to my husband, and has remarried and has another child too.

I feel angry that our tax credits and our child benefit are included as part of our household income but hers are not.

Ok our children count for 20% of just his income, but why do her children get 30% of his income and our child benefit and tax credits- How come they are worth more than ours? Also she gets her tax credits and child benefit too and despite both her and her husband working they still have NIL income as far as the CSA are concerned. THEY don't have nil income SHE does if they get WTC and if they get that, their income isn't going to be great. Unfortunately the rules state that if PWC gets working tax credits it counts as a type of benefit and so deems her to have a nil income.

How come my wages are taken into account but her husband's aren't? If she had an assessable income then it would because they have a child together - his income would be used to determine whether he can contribute towards his child and she would get less child allowances to offset against her income - as her income is deemed to be nil, it isn't needed. Also, their household is not due to lose income to pay out to another so it doesn't matter what income they have as they don't have to ensure that they are not left below a certain level.

How come on CSA 1 we are paying £600 a month, but on the new system we have been told by a member of the CSA staff surprised at the amount we were paying that he calculated that on the new system we would be paying £288 based on our present circumstances? Because the formula is very different. You would be one to stand to gain, but many more would not as there were vast numbers of NRPs with nil assessable incomes which was deemed unacceptable and one of the reasons it was changed. Due to the system falling apart virtually from day one it was decided not to transfer all cases which had been the original plan.

We cannot appeal or get put onto the new system.

It is a completely unfair system - roll on the time when we stop paying!

Without seeing the full details of your assessment I can't comment as to whether your income has made any difference whatsoever - it may have but it may not have either. Your tax credits and child benefit were not used to calculate what your partner should pay - they were used to determine whether he is deemed able to pay - there is a difference.

kelloggs36

13Kent wrote: »

The CSA system was originally put into place to target those NRPs who didn't want to contribute to the PRC. I wholeheartedly agree with this as they should be targeted. Unfortunately the 1st system was flawed. It allowed for too many loopholes so BOTH sides could abuse the system. In my case my ex-wife came under that category. Despite her illegally claiming benefits (she claimed I had walked out on her and was not paying anything) and telling the CSA I was not paying towards the kids upkeep the CSA took everything she said as verbatim. If she had a live benefit claim whether it was genuine or not, then the CSA at that time had no choice but to get involved and assess you. If you are unhappy about her claiming benefits, then your beef is with the Benefits Agency and not the CSA because the CSA don't have the jurisdiction to investigate alleged benefit fraud. Had she been investigatged and found that she had indeed claimed illegally, then you could have had the case quashed. I had to ask her for the proof I needed to clear half of the £8000 the CSA said I owed her! I paid the mortgage, all utility bills and she still had full access into our bank account. I stopped paying all the bills and switched to the CSA amount ONLY when she threatened to 'use the system to get every penny that I had and ruin me'. I have NEVER defaulted on a payment or paid less than I was asked despite the unfair system. You may say that I am biased, but I also have friends whose partners are PWC and they are having to support them as the CSA has been worked by the NRP. It is the system that is unfair. There should be one system not the 3 currently in force. Can you imagine going in to Tesco and being told you are on CSA 1 so your milk costs £1 you are on CSA 2 so you pay 50p! There are laws against that but apparently all of the CSA systems are legally fine!

Some people say that as a NRP I am no longer to have a life or find happiness again. Nobody has ever said that. Does the same apply to the PWC? My ex was with her new partner technically before I was kicked out (she was using my money to support their relationship before I found out). So where do you draw the line? As I said above I support the CSA in their aims but disagree how they go about things. Unfortunately when relationships break down someone gets their feelings hurt and emotions run high. Until the breakup can be dealt with without emotion the system is open to abuse.

I agree on your last point, but whatever caused the break up does not change the fact that you are a parent and should maintain the children. A lot of disputes originate due to the bitterness towards the ex, rather than the true matter and that is the children.

kelloggs36

13Kent wrote: »

And because they recieve tax credits they are deemed to be on a benefit and therefore the CSA say their household income is NIL - they could be earning £59 000 - plus their child benefit and tax credits - far more than us as NRP - but their income is still deemed as NIL and therefore not counted as far as the CSA are concerned. :mad:

I think you will find that it is only Working Tax Credits count and the threshold is much, much lower than what it is for Child Tax Credits. Child Tax Credits does NOT mean a nil income.

shell_542

kelloggs36 wrote: »

I think you will find that it is only Working Tax Credits count and the threshold is much, much lower than what it is for Child Tax Credits. Child Tax Credits does NOT mean a nil income.

Working tax credits threshold this year is approx £17000.

I didn't know that though, the CSA deem a PWC receiving working tax credits to have a NIL income?! :eek:

Does that go for NRPs too?