Order of Sale enforcement

chriszzz

Reading these posts, makes me feel that I have been educated enough to handle my split, positvely and fairly, putting both my son and his dad needs at the forefront of the split.

In genuine circumstances I do feel that it is biased towards the NRP, as it doesnt matter if the PWC has been the guilty party to why the relationship has broken down, the NRP is the one who becomes homeless and am not talking about the wealthy man who can buy another home am talking about your average earner.

Dont forget am talking genuine NRP, then has to immediately pay maintenance from his low wage, dont forget he has no home no furniture no where for his children to stay because he left his ex and children to have the comfort which he knows is the right thing to do.

I took that all into account when we split and I gave him what I possibly could to help him furnish his flat ie spare bed, microwave, bedding anything that i could spare him. I told him that I did not want any maintenance until he was on his feet.

I was managing alright with my wages and benefits and spoke to my son and explained that we will manage financially until his dad was in a better position to support him financially.

It took my ex approx 9 months to furnish his flat and then we agreed private arrangements. I accepted what he could afford and was happy with that, am not greedy and understand that he has a life to live to.

I dont think pwc are always worse off, as i went on solely to buy my own home. As It stands today I dont get maintenance due to my ex not working and am fine with that.

My son too sits in his bedroom, on his computer, charging his phone, making his friends something to eat and I am happy to fund it all.

Blob

Your attitude is a very rear one, if there were more people like you then there would be a lot less agro in the system. The unfortunate fact is that there are some out there that will try to extract every last penny that the NRP has and still want more as they see it as their right, they make sure that the children only see the NRP for just under teh time that qualifies for shared care and that is just the start of it.

Personally may I extend my congrats to you for the way that you have handled your situatuion.

chriszzz

Blob,

I can honestly say that I understand what you are saying, there is lots of different stories and everyone unique.

Some of the posts that I have read are quite disturbing. I am so glad that I have not inherited any bitterness and greed that I see going.

Some dont seem to understand what posters are trying to express and go straight into the defense.

Everyone has a story to tell and every story is not the same, but i think everyone should have a fair trial.

In your case and if you have the evidence that it has been an error on there part, I would be looking to sue for all the stress they have caused to you and your family.

Blob

It has nearly ended the relationship I have now after 6 years, and my devorce was 10 years ago. It has often been said that if she knew what the CSA were going to put her through she would never have got involved with me or anyone that has kids. She has advised some of teh woman at work as well, so as a result they have not set up home with a new partner. The CSA are good a destroying the lives of people that they go after, for no reason other than they can.

chriszzz

Blob,

I think its good to have the csa to help pwc collect payments from the nrp, as you and I no that there are nrp who dont want to pay, so Id say good on the csa in helping the pwc.

On the other hand when the csa have caused financial hardship to the nrp due to there errors, I believe nrp should be able to take the csa to court on the grounds of incompetence causing stress and pressure to the nrp.

I hope you and your OH can find away to one day put this behind you.

Blob

Have spoken to Her in doors, and neither of us had thought of her issueing papers against the CSA. She is going to look into this point next week.

Yes there are good and bad on both sides, and I have to agree with a Judge that said in his own Court, and noone took the matter up with him there or since, the law is written to be one sided and that is to the CSA. In my case there are 2 points that really burn me off big time, my ex got £16k from an org that I am in and it said on the letters that came with the money that it was maintenance but the CSA wont take this into account. The other is that as I did not have a rent book and paid for the house that my mother, my sister who both had heart conditions at the time, and myself and the kids when they were with me so it wont be taken into account. So with alleged arrears of say £18k if we take off the £16k and the money that I paid for the house and that was supported by ICE say £12k by my maths that means that I am in credit to the tune of say £10K. My ex is pushing for every thing the CSA can do against me to be done, sorry but the phrase 'money grabber' springs to mind!

Oh yrs she did not declear the £16k and was on benefits at the time, fraud perhaps, but no. It is me that is the big bad bas***d!

If it is posible she will sue them!

Steve40_2

kelloggs36 wrote: »

As I also said, your case will not end up with an order for sale because the CSA debt won't be paid off, so it will fail.

Yes of course I can sleep at night when the NRP has decided to make their children homeless themselves, through their own choices - you clearly don't see that it takes years to get to that stage, time in which to make an agreement to pay off what is owed. If the NRP fails to do this then they have to accept that they must pay for the choice they make. It works the same for any parent who commits any crime - their children suffer through their actions. I can't see why people cannot accept responsbility for their own choices!

according to what i have read on on the child support act and various legal documents the m court has no juristiction over amounts or assessments they are purely there t0 establish wether or not they can grant the order. The biggest problem i have witrh it is that magistrates courts only have juristiction in amounts up to £5000 but are granting liability orders well over these amounts.

Steve40_2

Blob wrote: »

Have spoken to Her in doors, and neither of us had thought of her issueing papers against the CSA. She is going to look into this point next week.

Yes there are good and bad on both sides, and I have to agree with a Judge that said in his own Court, and noone took the matter up with him there or since, the law is written to be one sided and that is to the CSA. In my case there are 2 points that really burn me off big time, my ex got £16k from an org that I am in and it said on the letters that came with the money that it was maintenance but the CSA wont take this into account. The other is that as I did not have a rent book and paid for the house that my mother, my sister who both had heart conditions at the time, and myself and the kids when they were with me so it wont be taken into account. So with alleged arrears of say £18k if we take off the £16k and the money that I paid for the house and that was supported by ICE say £12k by my maths that means that I am in credit to the tune of say £10K. My ex is pushing for every thing the CSA can do against me to be done, sorry but the phrase 'money grabber' springs to mind!

Oh yrs she did not declear the £16k and was on benefits at the time, fraud perhaps, but no. It is me that is the big bad bas***d!

If it is posible she will sue them!

I can sympathise with you my oldest daughter lived me i payed all my arrears off and also provided for my other child at the rate i should have .
but now i have to pay it all again. and i am losing my home because of it . But it is typical of people living in the money grabber world to only see the world from one angle and not accept the fact that relationships fail they always have done and they always will and there are always 2 sides to every story . One thing that really gets my goat is that the population asked for equality but when it come to the CSA its always the absent parents FAULT and they are treated as criminals

meds12_2

chriszzz wrote: »

Reading these posts, makes me feel that I have been educated enough to handle my split, positvely and fairly, putting both my son and his dad needs at the forefront of the split.

In genuine circumstances I do feel that it is biased towards the NRP, as it doesnt matter if the PWC has been the guilty party to why the relationship has broken down, the NRP is the one who becomes homeless and am not talking about the wealthy man who can buy another home am talking about your average earner.

Dont forget am talking genuine NRP, then has to immediately pay maintenance from his low wage, dont forget he has no home no furniture no where for his children to stay because he left his ex and children to have the comfort which he knows is the right thing to do.

I took that all into account when we split and I gave him what I possibly could to help him furnish his flat ie spare bed, microwave, bedding anything that i could spare him. I told him that I did not want any maintenance until he was on his feet.

I was managing alright with my wages and benefits and spoke to my son and explained that we will manage financially until his dad was in a better position to support him financially.

It took my ex approx 9 months to furnish his flat and then we agreed private arrangements. I accepted what he could afford and was happy with that, am not greedy and understand that he has a life to live to.

I dont think pwc are always worse off, as i went on solely to buy my own home. As It stands today I dont get maintenance due to my ex not working and am fine with that.

My son too sits in his bedroom, on his computer, charging his phone, making his friends something to eat and I am happy to fund it all.

Good for you! I split with my partner two summers ago for about a month, and as it was my decision to split I told him I didn't want any maintenance, and he could have whatever access arrangement he chose - 50/50 etc. He was clearly willing to work and fund our house and lifestyle - as a family, but as I wanted the split I thought that morally I should be the one to fully fund it (taking away his family was bad enough, leaving him destitute as well would have been even worse), and we even divided our savings 50/50. In the end, we sorted out our issues and got back together. However, I think if he had been the one to choose to split up (and leave my with sole care of our child), I would have definitely, definitely have assumed that he should be paying child maintenance.

Soubrette

Steve40 wrote: »

I can sympathise with you my oldest daughter lived me i payed all my arrears off and also provided for my other child at the rate i should have .
but now i have to pay it all again. and i am losing my home because of it . But it is typical of people living in the money grabber world to only see the world from one angle and not accept the fact that relationships fail they always have done and they always will and there are always 2 sides to every story . One thing that really gets my goat is that the population asked for equality but when it come to the CSA its always the absent parents FAULT and they are treated as criminals

How can there be two sides to every story but the CSA always treat the absent parent as criminals?

Isn't that oxymoronic?

It amazes me how many people have a horrible (and sometimes unfair) experience with the CSA and somehow generalise it to the whole population - in your instance it is as if there is no evidence of NRPs who do not pay a penny, job hop to avoid paying, use every loophole at their disposal etc and whom the CSA seem to not treat as a criminal.

Yes, I'm sure you've had a horrible experience Steve40 and I'm equally sure there is a good chance the CSA have dealt with your case ineptly and made certain assumptions about you that were unfair.

I've had that experience too with the CSA and I'm the PWC - if you read the boards with an open mind there are a mixture of NRPs and PWCs who have had this kind of experience with the CSA.

Sou