Tribunal says CSA must pay £31K back to NRP but…

Dancing_Shoes

For us we have always made sure there is enought to cover roughly 70% of their household bills, then made sure there is money for their afterschool clubs etc and paid for at least 1 holiday per year plus uniform etc. Having children myself I pay for their lifestyle to be as I would like for my own whether this is right or wrong I don't know

shell_542

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

What they are "supposed to" and what it actually costs to keep their child, are often two different things.

Who gets to decide how much it costs?

My children get very little material things at the moment. They get a roof over their head, food in their bellies and the love and emotional support of their parents who cannot afford to splash out on them all the time.

Just because the PWC might decide she wants to send her child to do all the extra curricular activities under the sun, buy as many clothes as she wants for the child, spoil them rotten, that means that an NRP should fund that? Not in my opinion.

We do not have an endless pot of money.

Dancing_Shoes

I agree with you Shell, it has to be a decision on both sides as to what is fair. The essentials are food and shelter which the nrp should pay towards (not foot the whole bill but 50% towards the childs share) then anything over and above that is whether the nrp can afford it

kelloggs36

shell_542 wrote: »

Who gets to decide how much it costs?

My children get very little material things at the moment. They get a roof over their head, food in their bellies and the love and emotional support of their parents who cannot afford to splash out on them all the time.

Just because the PWC might decide she wants to send her child to do all the extra curricular activities under the sun, buy as many clothes as she wants for the child, spoil them rotten, that means that an NRP should fund that? Not in my opinion.

We do not have an endless pot of money.

If the PWC decides that is what she wants for the children then it should be her that makes up any shortfall that she may find after she has received the correct, legal level of child support.

shell_542

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

It might be better if parents attitudes towards their children, changed. The CSA wouldn't be needed if both parents paid the true amount that their children cost to feed and house.

kelloggs36 wrote: »

If the PWC decides that is what she wants for the children then it should be her that makes up any shortfall that she may find after she has received the correct, legal level of child support.

That's what I was getting at. If the PWC wants to do all of those things then good on them. Only its there responsibility to fund it if the NRP is paying the level of child support they are requested to pay.

elfen

Ok, back to the overpayment. If it is the fault of the CSA not the PWC then the CSA would pay back the money owed. If it was the fault of the PWC they would have to (since the NRP has to pay them, so if it's too high then they'd get some back - again a CSA mistake not a PWC) In OP's circs, it would be CSA who have to arrange the overpayment repayment to the NRP as they made the mistake NOT the PWC.

Soubrette

shell_542 wrote: »

Who gets to decide how much it costs?

My children get very little material things at the moment. They get a roof over their head, food in their bellies and the love and emotional support of their parents who cannot afford to splash out on them all the time.

Just because the PWC might decide she wants to send her child to do all the extra curricular activities under the sun, buy as many clothes as she wants for the child, spoil them rotten, that means that an NRP should fund that? Not in my opinion.

We do not have an endless pot of money.

I assume that it because you can only afford to give them the basics + love at the moment ie your chldren live a similar lifestyle to the adults in the family.

It is up to the PWC to allocate the money available to bring up a child including the money from the NRP as decided by parliament. As in your family there will be a budget to allocate.

I assume if you won the lottery then your children would get considerably more than they are getting now?

Likewise I assume you'd feel a PWC would be a pretty mingy parent if they provided basic food/shelter/clothing for their child while living a champagne lifestyle, I know I certainly would. I know things are tough when you are at the lower end of the earning scale but why should a £100000 a year earner provide half basic food/shelter clothing for their own children when if they lived with that parent they would get so much more? Even for the lower earners - why should one set of children get more benefit than the other set? CSA is a blunt instrument but at least has the basic idea that a parent is responsible for all their children.

What about those PWCs lucky enough to have a supportive family or marry a rich partner - is it moral that this should somehow reduce the liability of the other natural parent?

Mmm lemonade kids on a champagne lifestyle - I feel an addition to the pedigree chum argument coming on.

Also I haven't forgotten you Things are a bit hectic here and I'm hoping they'll calm down soon so I'll PM you shortly

Sou

shell_542

Maybe I'm being a little naive in expecting any NRP to ensure ALL their childrenn benefit when they can afford to contribute over and above what is expected of them. I know we would if we could afford it. I didn't mean that an NRP earning 100,000 a year should only pay the very minimum because that's all they're asked to. Child suppport is to reflect the lifestyle the child could have had had both biological parents brought them up together. There would be no extravagencies if my H had brought the child up with the birth mother working as he is now, or if there were, they would be coming from her earnings anyway, not just his. I hope that makes nsense.

I think there was a misunderstanding in my post. I hope you don't think I would advocate this champagne lifestyle of the NRP while the child has the basics.

I was replying to the comments about how much a child really costs as opposed to how much NRPs are expected to pay. An NRP may be paying an amount they can just about afford which helps towards the basics but a PWCs may have much more "expensive tastes" and think the child support is a pittance compared to what they do/would like to spend out.

LizzieS_2

shell_542 wrote: »

Maybe I'm being a little naive in expecting any NRP to ensure ALL their childrenn benefit when they can afford to contribute over and above what is expected of them. I know we would if we could afford it. I didn't mean that an NRP earning 100,000 a year should only pay the very minimum because that's all they're asked to. Child suppport is to reflect the lifestyle the child could have had had both biological parents brought them up together. There would be no extravagencies if my H had brought the child up with the birth mother working as he is now, or if there were, they would be coming from her earnings anyway, not just his. I hope that makes nsense.

I think there was a misunderstanding in my post. I hope you don't think I would advocate this champagne lifestyle of the NRP while the child has the basics.

I was replying to the comments about how much a child really costs as opposed to how much NRPs are expected to pay. An NRP may be paying an amount they can just about afford which helps towards the basics but a PWCs may have much more "expensive tastes" and think the child support is a pittance compared to what they do/would like to spend out.

You are contradicting yourself here, though I think it is unintentional on your part.

Say a nrp was earning 50,000 net (csa2 and 1 child to pay for with 1 resident child also). Nrp would pay £122pw which coupled with the pwc's income may not give a wonderful lifestyle, but it wouldn't just provide the basics either. In essence, it would be the pwcs own circumstances that limited the child having the same kind of lifesyle as the nrp.

On the other hand say the nrp earns 12000 net (same criteria). NRP would pay £29pw. Again there are 2 extremes. Either the pwc has a good income herself and the child gets a better lifestyle, or pwc is in a worse postion than nrp and child gets less than nrp lifestyle.

All in the system is aimed at giving the child a lifestyle equal to the differences between parents incomes - if they lived together that is the lifestyle they would have. Most of the issues that occur are down to the fact that no 2 new families have identical incomes or lifestyles, so half siblings never are equal materialiscally (not even when income is identical as 2 couples have different ideas over what is best).

Orson_Cart_2

My cheque from the DWP arrived today. Big thanks for all those who helped and big hand to NACSA for your very detailed and accurate advice.

Still another tribunal to go, a minor issue to put right, then its a claim for compensation for the years of pillaging the family kitty. The CSA has thus far offered a token gusture but declined sending a bunch of flowers for my NRPP.