Order of Sale enforcement

speedster

basically steve.

this is info that is common knowledge. wrong, but common.

nadine273

Aaaaarghhhh I was not meant to be posting on this thread but you guys got the best of me.
What on earth are vikki pollards?
My first thought was: "he must be talking about polish vikings"so I asked my partner but he laughed... asked me if there was wine left in the bottle (and of course there is. I had one glass only because I am not much of a drinker)... he laughed again... and still is laughing! :mad:
Forgive my ignorance but it can take an eternity to understand all the lingoes of one's country and I have not been in this country for an eternity -even though at times if feels like it but I guess that is because I tend to miss not being somewhere where the sun does not constantly play peek-a-boo with the clouds).

LizzieS_2

speedster wrote: »

i know a guy who pays out the best part of £150 per WEEK, yet his ex gets a tenner of it. reducing poverty? my arze.

She will get £20 of it since October 2008. Well actually she will get the full £150 CM from him and any top up benefits will be reduced by £130.

There are supposedly plans to allow all CM to be paid on top of benefits (personally I thought there was going to be a higher restriction to £40pw but others say differently).

We've already had threads complaining how it will pay for some pwcs to not work - there were some examples of large amounts from each of 3 - 6 nrps (to same pwc) plus the full benefits (single persons allowance, tax credits, housing/council tax benefit, plus the other associated freebies).

Is it right for the taxpayer to fund the offspring when there are 2 parents capable of doing that for themselves?

LizzieS_2

nadine273 wrote: »

What on earth are vikki pollards?

TV character who thought the world owed her everything. Although she (man in drag) only had one child, it is often looked as women who have numerous children with numerous different men and think everyone but themself should pay for them.

Paparika

Dancing_Shoes wrote: »

Really??
My husband walked out because he didn't love his ex wife anymore, should he have gone for the snip then:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:
He supports ALL his children so as long as he can do that he can have as many babies as he likes with whom he likes:eek:;):p

read it again, it's not against those that DO support their children

kelloggs36

nadine273 wrote: »

Aaaaarghhhh I was not meant to be posting on this thread but you guys got the best of me.
What on earth are vikki pollards?
My first thought was: "he must be talking about polish vikings"so I asked my partner but he laughed... asked me if there was wine left in the bottle (and of course there is. I had one glass only because I am not much of a drinker)... he laughed again... and still is laughing! :mad:
Forgive my ignorance but it can take an eternity to understand all the lingoes of one's country and I have not been in this country for an eternity -even though at times if feels like it but I guess that is because I tend to miss not being somewhere where the sun does not constantly play peek-a-boo with the clouds).

Vikki Pollard is a fictional character on Little Britain. A real chav. Teenage mother, who smokes, drinks, has kids by lots of different fathers and who has no chance of getting a job as long as she lives - no education etc.

I have never been such a character, but have needed to claim via the CSA for my child - I was married to the father of my child but he decided that it was inconvenient to him and he left to start again, and blames me for the fact that the CSA make his life difficult!!! Many, many PWCs were married to their ex's, so it is very much a stereotyped view to think that it was set up purely to reduce the benefits bill; had that been the case then private clients would have been forced to continue using the courts to try and get maintenance from their ex's.

chriszzz

I too had an ex who did not have contact or contributed financially to the up-keeping of his children. I raised them on my own until I met a new partner whom we went on to have a child, unfortunately that relationship ended and he did contribute until my son was 13, he had regular contact and there was never a problem if he wanted extra days with his son, It was always encouraged.

I have been on both sides of the coin here and I can say catergorically that in the child heart its not about money, Its about the relationship they have with that other parent.

My first two children who are now 31,and 26 both have problems, my daughter who is 26 still thinks about her dad and still gets upset, she has a daughter and she said that she wanted to go dressed up on halloween with her daughter and knock on his door, Its obvious that she wanted him in her life and still affects her. They were both 5 and 9 when we split up, so alot of years have gone by and he his still on her mind, thats probably cos she feels incomplete, there is a missing jigsaw in her life.

My son to my other partner is full of life, happy, confident, has a brilliant attitude and very focused. He is full of affection and heading for great things.

I think thats why I feel that money isnt the major contribution to a child life, its only paper that can buy material things, which dont have any feelings. I do think NRP should financially support there child/ren.

Maybe PWC should concentrate on taking the NRP to court to make him have access (just a thought) and if safe to do so.

Steve40_2

When me and the mother of my second child departed company (due to the fact she liked the fairer sex) I set up a private agreement between the mothers and i so that i could ensure provision for both my children , You may remember in an earlier post that i mentioned paying arrears back to PWC whilst the child a child was in my care this was part of the private agreement"
i had a letter from the CSA confirming that they knew of the private agreement and that no further action would be taken so it was safe to assume everybody was happy unitl 4 years later when i had a phone call for the agency telling me that i owed 10's of thousands of arrear and that they knew nothing of any private agreement . i explained to them that i was paying for 2 children because they had failed to assess the 2nd one . The person on the phone who shall remain nameless informed me that i should not of been paying for the 2nd one as they never told me i could . so what is there purpose what were they set up to do ?

chriszzz

Just a little message to say "sorry" think your post got a bit bombarded and I was one of them that bombarded it .

I think what you are doing is great!!!! and I hope you can help those that need your help.

Steve40_2

I have scanned the documents that are in my possession and would be willing to forward them to whoever is interested .