Order of Sale enforcement

Dancing_Shoes

Soubrette wrote: »

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

I agree that there will always be a need for an organisation such as the csa for the nrp's who refuse to pay but there are alot of nrp's who are happy to pay towards their childs upbringing.

For us we now pay an awful lot less via the csa than we did previously so it isn't always a weapon that works out;)

Dancing_Shoes

LizzieS wrote: »

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

on mse?
Maybe I am too trusting but I cannot get my head around the fact that people would make up a story to post? If so they really need to get a life:rotfl:

Blob

LS Yes thats the one and they are recuting a number of top solicitors as well!

Soubrette

Dancing_Shoes wrote: »

I do however agree with that statement;)

I'm not saying this because you agree with me on this point - honest but it is actually a pleasure listening to your point of view. Although I often do not agree with it, there is none of the nastiness evident with some of the other NRP defenders on here.

I agree that there will always be a need for an organisation such as the csa for the nrp's who refuse to pay but there are alot of nrp's who are happy to pay towards their childs upbringing.

For us we now pay an awful lot less via the csa than we did previously so it isn't always a weapon that works out

No arguments there from me either. I believe there are a certain proportion of PWCs either with expensive tastes or a malicious view who are more than happy to take their ex to the cleaners and have an ex who for a variety of reasons feel forced to pay. The CSA also gives these NRPs an indication of what is legally considered fair.

Out of interest though - if you feel the NRP should pay according to their own outgoings - how about they have to pay more or less according the PWCs outgoings

Sou

speedster

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:

why make it up?? i haven't begun to mention just how viscious and mental my ex is yet.

am i to be accused of making a phoney post when i post something about my situation?? i keep most of the gory details out, (too many eyes and ears) good job, cos some of her antics would make your toes curl. it's actually hard to comprehend just how malicious she is.

if that woman thought for one minute she could force the sale of my house, she'd start frothing at the mouth. there's nothing she'd rather see than my children and i on the street.

Paparika

It's amazing..

All the parents who don't / won't pay for their offspring of a previous relationship are up in arms, 'oh what about my children if i loose my home' - What about the children you left behind you cretins. Do they not count, you may worry now about your current family, but what about those children you deny financial help/needs

Really if you leave children behind, should you really be making more children really should you. You've proved you can't support one family, why should you go on and have more.

This is not aimed at those who have paid and been screwed by CSA, nor those who pay and don't have a problem. or even those who have paid for a child that wasn't even theirs, if you have a legit reason why then why should you have this.

Its aimed at those who refuse to pay, and will give up a job just so they don't have to pay, the ones who use their fists and verbally attack the parents/ family that have supported and looked after your children, you know who you are.

Soubrette

Dancing_Shoes wrote: »

on mse?
Maybe I am too trusting but I cannot get my head around the fact that people would make up a story to post? If so they really need to get a life:rotfl:

I dunno, there are certain Walter Mitty type characters who seem to appear on all walks of life, I think they really believe what they are portraying even if some little things they say don't add up.

I tend to take posts at face value because if I'm taking the time to respond then there is no point doing anything else really - even if (very occasionally) I am rolling my eyes at some of the things they say.

If I think they are total rubbish then I don't respond - I do get annoyed when someone posts their one impassioned post about not being able to see their children or being about to be put on the street due to not being paid child maintenance, lots of replies ensue, then nothing, no response to anything. I do sometimes wonder if these are more troll like posts.

Sou

chriszzz

Dancing_Shoes wrote: »

You sound like a fantastic mother who puts her child before anything else:T I was truly amazed when I read your post (in a good way;))

"Thank You" Am sure there are plenty of fantastic mothers doing a good job raising there children!!

I just dont get bitter about money, I would be more bitter if my sons father did not have any contact with him.

Its the contact thats going to make my son a happier and appreciative person. He will grown up with the love he needs to help him to develop the skills he needs to take him into his adult life....without any hang-ups.:j

Dancing_Shoes

Soubrette wrote: »

I'm not saying this because you agree with me on this point - honest but it is actually a pleasure listening to your point of view. Although I often do not agree with it, there is none of the nastiness evident with some of the other NRP defenders on here.



No arguments there from me either. I believe there are a certain proportion of PWCs either with expensive tastes or a malicious view who are more than happy to take their ex to the cleaners and have an ex who for a variety of reasons feel forced to pay. The CSA also gives these NRPs an indication of what is legally considered fair.

Out of interest though - if you feel the NRP should pay according to their own outgoings - how about they have to pay more or less according the PWCs outgoings

Sou

Good point, if the pwc is really hard up (due to not being able to work etc not just due to expensive tastes;)) then if the nrp can afford to pay more then I suppose I do agree that maybe they should. We pay less in actual maintenance but we still pay extras because we can afford to but not everyone is in that position doesn't make them more or less of a parent.

nadine273

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 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;)

When I said "no matter how big or small the contribution is" it did not relate to what the CSA is asking the NRP to pay.

Sorry for the confusion!

Some PWCs tend to contact the CSA when they fail to reach a private agreement.
If a private agreement is for £25/week but the NRP refuses to pay (despite earning £56K/year and no mortgage since he inherited the house many years ago when his parents died) then I do not see how anyone could think of him as a good dad who deserves to keep his home.

I do feel sorry for all the NRPs who had their lives destroyed because "some" CSA staff made some mistakes but I will never feel sorry when totally non-compliant NRPs lose their home because they have accrued £40K or more in arrears through their own fault.

N.B: I wish posters would take a minute to carefully read my posts for they would then realise that I am not a bitter PWC who wishes for all NRPs to lose their home.
My partner is a NRP who made large contribution towards his children upbringing because he could afford to do so.

When a NRP cannot afford to pay maintenance what is stopping him from offering "moral" support.

To say "I love you" to a child is cost-free.
Hugs are cost-free as well.
Being interested in a child's education is cost-free too.
And the list goes on...

Done posting cos this thread is getting too much off topic!
(Sorry NACSA)