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

Soubrette

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.

Ahh my apologies, we have had a few NRP posts querying how much it actually costs to bring up a child when in actual fact they are asking how much it costs to give a child a minimal upbringing - they seem to be under the impression that there is some minimum acceptable upbringing for a child and that this 'cost' should be worked out as any benefits taken away from it and then what is left divided by two. This figure being what they are liable for - I have even read posts querying the fact that as the NRP's salary goes up, so do child support payments - how can that be when there is this (mythical) fixed cost of bringing up children. :rolleyes:

Of course different children cost different things depending on which family they were lucky enough to be born into. I complete agree that the child is supposed to benefit from the income of both parents (not their partners) but this is why the Government has decided the percentage that it feels is a fair contribution from the NRP. The PWC therefore has their budget and chooses how to allocate that - it doesn't matter if they have expensive tastes or cheap tacky ones - if they have enough money to buy a few clothes from Next or many clothes from Asda then that is their choice. In effect the Government has said 'you are entitled to this percentage of income from the NRP' whether or not that is actually enough to cover that minimal acceptable cost (after all some NRPs will pay only the minimum £5 a week) and has also imposed a cap on what the PWC can expect to legally have - expensive tastes or not.

I think the Government does try and take into account all the children however since some NRPs deliberately flouted the rules in CSA1 by increasing outgoings deliberately, the formula was changed so outgoings are not now included. So if a PWC has less outgoings such as no mortgage or more income such as a wealthy PWCP then the child in that household will almost certainly benefit more than the children in the NRP household but isn't that more to do with less outgoing and more incoming, leading to a greater household income rather than the second (or first) family being done down in some way?

I think your comment about people's expectations is very perceptive - as far as I can see the best the CSA can manage is for both parties to believe that the other party is the favoured one - a bit like having children

I can confirm that the CSA is definitely biased against the PWC - from my own experiences

Sou

kelloggs36

Excellent post Sou and it matches my experiences too!!!

Blue_Horizon

I can confirm that the CSA is definitely biased against the PWC - from my own experiences

Sou - My experience is different, but then I'm a NRP. For example, at the moment I'm still paying for my son who turned 19 in June and yes it's now September and the CSA still have not processed the CoC. In fact, he left college in Feb 08 and was supposed to be back at college again. I'm now told he is not going back - funny that! In the meantime, he has been working almost full time, enjoys holidays abroad and buys expensive clothes. I know that not all PWCs encourage or support their children to mislead the government or their parents in this way, but some do and they get away with it.

Orson_Cart_2

If you reclaim CSA over payments via tribunal you earn 8% interest. Better than any investment product on the market today.

Soubrette

Blue_Horizon wrote: »

Sou - My experience is different, but then I'm a NRP. For example, at the moment I'm still paying for my son who turned 19 in June and yes it's now September and the CSA still have not processed the CoC. In fact, he left college in Feb 08 and was supposed to be back at college again. I'm now told he is not going back - funny that! In the meantime, he has been working almost full time, enjoys holidays abroad and buys expensive clothes. I know that not all PWCs encourage or support their children to mislead the government or their parents in this way, but some do and they get away with it.

My comment was supposed to be somewhat tongue in cheek

From my own experiences the CSA are biased against the PWC, they expected me to do their job for them by investigating my ex's income when they have draconian powers that they can use (or alternatively look at his tax returns) and have even been told by my case worker that as MPs are often in the position of the NRP, they have therefore have deliberately passed legislation that favours male NRPs.

Do I actually believe this? Do I heck:rotfl: I only have to read the experiences of people on here to see how incompetent the CSA is - I assume they are target driven and want to push cases off their desk as soon as possible so whether it be PWC or NRP, if it gets the case moving then they'll say anything to get rid.

Do I believe the CSA is rubbish, certainly. Do I believe it has a certain bias - if I look beyond my own experiences then no - it's equally rubbish to everyone if the case is complicated in some way and especially if the one of the parents is non compliant or choosing to play the system in some way.

Orson - not so much fun if you have investments earning 2-3% and the CSA deem that they earn 8% when working out child maintenance payments - but it does illustrate what I mean, the CSA is consistently rubbish and sometimes you'll win and sometimes you'll lose.

Sou

Blue_Horizon

My comment was supposed to be somewhat tongue in cheek

Ah .....
Now I understand, and agree with much in your last message.

Orson_Cart_2

Soubrette wrote: »

Orson - not so much fun if you have investments earning 2-3% and the CSA deem that they earn 8% when working out child maintenance payments - but it does illustrate what I mean, the CSA is consistently rubbish and sometimes you'll win and sometimes you'll lose.

Except for my ex who gets a £31K free handout from the taxpayer and a rent-free house out of me, there are no winners with the CSA.

Having such a generous benefits system only encourages single mums to choose to be single mums without giving single dads a choice whether he wants to be a single dad. I would say the law inflicts more damage to an NRP’s life considerably more than a PWC.

There was a debate on the radio recently, a caller to a show suggested introducing tax credits for all working parents could dispense with the need for the CSA entirely.

Another caller suggested the CSA has become a government jobs programme and its net losses are incalculable, probably due to the hidden economy of workers working illegally and sign on to stop paying tax being a greater loss to the state than the money it collects from NRPs minus its operational running costs. The money would be better spent on tax credits.

As Mr. Justice Munby said, the CSA needs reform, and that was nearly four years ago….

gazsmith

Hi guys, Yes I can relate to everyone as CSA sent me a letter saying they owe me £36000 yes £36000 of which I have to date only had a keep quiet payment of £600. I have persued this through letters to the Prime Minister but the CSA seem above the PM. I had my Son stay with me in his last year before he reached 16 and not a penny from CSA even though I had protested I was overpaying. I am now seeking Full media coverage. The CSA even asked for the letter back..... Must think I was born Yesterday :rotfl:

Regards
XxgazxX

Blonde_Bint

lol asked for their letter back LMAO I dont think :rotfl: oh gaz you must let us know how you get on:D what a bunch of ......... (feel free to insert anything you like)