Order of Sale enforcement

nadine273

Yes, the CSA has made mistakes and is likely to make more.
Not everything or everyone is perfect!

Not all PWCs were married so if the house belongs to their ex they are not entitled to remain there.

I have recently started to think of doing social work even though my area of expertise is politics because two of my very close friends are social workers and they do meet many single mothers who have nowhere to live and are not receiving financial contributions from their ex.

As to claiming that the CSA should give the home to the PWC (I assume that what you mean to say is that the NRP would be giving up his home so the PWC can have somewhere to live): THANK YOU!!!!!

But do you realise that you have also just contradicted yourself?

Indeed, if a NRP gives up his home he will then need to re-house himself!

I read through many posts (nearly all of them) and found out that many ppl on here are making up phoney stories.

The CSA is what it is because too many NRPs are lying through their teeth so now when a NRP is actually telling the truth the CSA tends to be very wary.

Unfortunately it is also a sad fact that some PWCs are using the CSA as a vengeful weapon.

Some NRPs are absolutly fantastic.
My partner has three kids, he has always paid maintenance (despite the fact that his ex-wife deliberately moved far away to cause him grief), his kids were well educated and each have a flat bought with their father's money.
He has opened two bank accounts for my child: one standard account and a saving account.
He is looking to buy a flat and rent it out but when my child turns 21 the flat will be his.
We are not even married yet but he has done sooooooo much for us.
However, Im not prepared to close my claim with the CSA.
Why should I?
He wanted us to have a child.
Had he treated me as a human being instead of a dog I would still be with my ex so he can hate me for as long as he wants I could not care less.

My life is good and I am very thankful but it does feel me with sadness that it is my partner taking care of my child.
My child's biological father should be the one contributing not my partner!

To NACSA:
I hope you will do everything in your power to ensure that it is only non-compliant NRPs who lose their home.
NRPs who are unjustly about to lose their home should be protected.

To those who are not happy with my opinion:
You do not need to agree with me but at least do consider every angle of a situation!

I said my peace so if you wish to bang your head against your computer screen do not feel offended if I take no notice of it! ;-)

Blob

A little bit of information for you ponder on this one, it is to be run from a new address in Yorkshire, and that address is to be kept secret! It will be past on to me in the next few weeks and I will post it here.

Please dont bother to ask how it will find its way to me as it is supposed to be a secret!!!

pd001

chriszzz wrote: »

If you read some of the posts, you will find that some NRP are claiming that through the incompetence of some csa staff, they have lost their homes, so you can see the bitterness that the csa bring to ppls lives.

Agreed,
I lost my home because some idiot at the csa decided that they would take just over 50% of my net take home pay by means of a deo.
I am on a low wage and the extra money that they took meant that I couldn't pay my rent.
Also, they instructed bailiffs because they had no chance of getting my arrears paid off within 'their' two year time period. When I told my landlord about this he said I had to go.
Off I went and for some considerable time lived in my vehicle.

As things worked out, I didn't actually owe the amount of arrears that they had calculated. The actual amount that I owe will be paid off within 'their' two year period.

Dancing_Shoes

nadine273 wrote: »

In my own personal opinion:

If a NRP refuses to pay child maintenance despite being able to afford to make a contribution -no matter how big or small the contribution is- that speaks volume about how he feels about his/her child!

I think that for some people due to their outgoings their csa assessment although done correctly is too much for them to pay so they go to their pwc's and ask them to accept a lesser figure due to the situation but they are told that they want the figure that the csa suggest even though it may be crippling them. I do have sympathy for those nrp's as not everything is black and white and alot of nrp's walk away with nothing from their divorce/seperation and have to start again with house etc etc so in those instances then I think that a private agreement that is in the interests of both parties should be agreed to. If the nrp is unwilling to pay anything then tbh they deserve to be hounded by the csa;)

Dancing_Shoes

nadine273 wrote: »

I read through many posts (nearly all of them) and found out that many ppl on here are making up phoney stories.

That is a very bold statement to make!
Of course none of us really know the full story with regards to what people post but they would have to be pretty weird people if they came on here and posted phoney stories....:rolleyes:

Soubrette

Dancing_Shoes wrote: »

I think that for some people due to their outgoings their csa assessment although done correctly is too much for them to pay

This was tried though - CSA1 was a complicated formula based on outgoings and incomings, unfortunately arrears could not easily be assessed meaning that some NRPs were whacked with high arrears during the working out period.

Secondly enough NRPs choose to increase their outgoings and thus reduce their child maintenance.

Hence CSA2 - if we all abided by the spirit of the rules then CSA1 would still exist - but some people don't and when it becomes a significant minority then things change.

On a practical basis - most people live to their income and so finding any kind of child maintenance is always going to be an issue, unfortunately that significant minority would prefer to pay very little to keep their lifestyle as they would like it to be.

IMO, leaving aside people on benefits, most people are happy to pay and receive a reasonable child maintenance, by the time the CSA is involved it is because one or other perceives the position to be unfair so at least the CSA, as a third party, follows an impartial path in working out the correct amount (again leaving aside their competency as an organisation).

Sou

Soubrette

Dancing_Shoes wrote: »

That is a very bold statement to make!
Of course none of us really know the full story with regards to what people post but they would have to be pretty weird people if they came on here and posted phoney stories....:rolleyes:

This is purely my opinion but anyone who posts that none of their maintenance is spent on their child is either foolish, lying or criminally neglectful of their own child.

Sou

Dancing_Shoes

Soubrette wrote: »

This is purely my opinion but anyone who posts that none of their maintenance is spent on their child is either foolish, lying or criminally neglectful of their own child.

Sou

I do however agree with that statement;)

LizzieS_2

Dancing_Shoes wrote: »

That is a very bold statement to make!
Of course none of us really know the full story with regards to what people post but they would have to be pretty weird people if they came on here and posted phoney stories....:rolleyes:

Even more weird it is just a few people who spend their entire days making up stories - not just on this board either.

LizzieS_2

Blob wrote: »

A little bit of information for you ponder on this one, it is to be run from a new address in Yorkshire, and that address is to be kept secret! It will be past on to me in the next few weeks and I will post it here.

Please dont bother to ask how it will find its way to me as it is supposed to be a secret!!!

Do you mean the research nacsa is doing?