csa old system

Dancing_Shoes

chriszzz wrote: »

With risk of causing some to get there knickers in a twist, Heck what do I care I will say it anyway.

Why should any woman in your situation have to let the !!!!! know what you are earning.

The NRP is paying for his chidren, END OF!!!

The ex has a new partner, so why is his money exempt from contributing to the household, Its as though the csa class all pwc, single.

It all falls on the shoulder of the nrp and new partner but not the ex and her new partner.

Doesnt it just pi55 u off???

Am afraid but in my opinion you do not owe your partners children a penny, no offence to your partner and his children but am sure he will agree.

Grrrrr some things are really not fair!!!

Chriszzz - I am with you;)

mcb23

Thanks for your response! It seems like her partners income doesnt come into it..... So why should mine..... I could see if I had a child with my partner and wanted some of the 30% back into our household but we dont.

My partner fully feels the same about them wanting my income we are now being threatened with a blind assessment which looks like they will assume I wont provide my income as I earn loads and will try to make him pay more....

True about whether she may have access never say never which is even more reason for me not to give my details.

Steve40_2

chriszzz wrote: »

With risk of causing some to get there knickers in a twist, Heck what do I care I will say it anyway.

Why should any woman in your situation have to let the !!!!! know what you are earning.

The NRP is paying for his chidren, END OF!!!

The ex has a new partner, so why is his money exempt from contributing to the household, Its as though the csa class all pwc, single.

It all falls on the shoulder of the nrp and new partner but not the ex and her new partner.

Doesnt it just pi55 u off???

Am afraid but in my opinion you do not owe your partners children a penny, no offence to your partner and his children but am sure he will agree.

Grrrrr some things are really not fair!!!

If the csa staff is made up of culpulous amounts of PWC's that have the hump with there own NRP's nobody stands a chance of fair dealing, it should become illegal for these people to work in the agency due to biased oppinion . i mean you can t use biased evidence when fighting your corner so why should they employ PWC's that already have the hump about child maintenance payments . says a lot doesn't it :eek::eek::eek:

kelloggs36

If he is paying the full 30% of his net income then he will NOT be asked to pay more. That is unless the PWC requests a departure on the grounds that you could contribute towards the housing costs. She may not do that - many don't and only do so (usually) if their money drops due to the partner moving in and then they feel it is unfair as the partner can contribute towards the house in which they live. It works both ways though (providing that the PWC works and has an assessable income themselves).

They can't make you provide the details, but in order to do a full one, they do need them. Otherwise they will do what is called an IMA B assessment which gives no protected income; in your case it will result in no change - unless his income has increased any?

kelloggs36

mcb23 wrote: »

Thanks for your response! It seems like her partners income doesnt come into it..... So why should mine..... I could see if I had a child with my partner and wanted some of the 30% back into our household but we dont.

My partner fully feels the same about them wanting my income we are now being threatened with a blind assessment which looks like they will assume I wont provide my income as I earn loads and will try to make him pay more....

True about whether she may have access never say never which is even more reason for me not to give my details.

That is actually where you are wrong. The PWCP details are not needed because the CSA are not looking to remove money from that household, and therefore do not need to calculate to ensure that they do not fall below a certain level of income on which to live.

Having said that, if the PWC and the new partner have any children together, then the PWCP details ARE required to check what child allowances to offset against PWC income - either 50% or 100%. this is exactly the same as for the NRPP - if they have children with the NRP then their income details are required to determine whether to offset 100% or only 50% of the child allowances against the NRP net income. If NRPP refuses to give their details then it will be assumed that they can contribute towards the costs of their own children and only 50% child allowances will be given. This could be to their detriment as if they work part time, there is a possibility that actually their income is NOT sufficient (using the fixed calculation) and therefore the assessment would be higher.

The OP's case is straight forward as they have no children there - therefore the assessment won't change anyway.

kelloggs36

Steve40 wrote: »

If the csa staff is made up of culpulous amounts of PWC's that have the hump with there own NRP's nobody stands a chance of fair dealing, it should become illegal for these people to work in the agency due to biased oppinion . i mean you can t use biased evidence when fighting your corner so why should they employ PWC's that already have the hump about child maintenance payments . says a lot doesn't it :eek::eek::eek:

What a load of rubbish! Do you honestly think that PWCs in the agency have any say over how a case is dealt with? Cases are checked to ensure that the procedures are followed to the letter. Of course mistakes are made, but that is what they are; they certainly aren't deliberate errors.

Orson_Cart_2

Steve40 wrote: »

If the csa staff is made up of culpulous amounts of PWC's that have the hump with there own NRP's nobody stands a chance of fair dealing,

I am sure this is why my case want belly-up and needed to go before a tribunal judge to get a fair and accurate assessment.

Those nuisance telephone calls achieved nothing, they just tried to put words in my mouth and make up bogus assumptions and pass them on as fact. It was a very dishonest thing to do.

If we had proper staff without grudges against men we wouldnt even be here and the taxpayer would have saved 30 grand on my case alone.

3onitsway

There are as many, if not more, NRP's working at the agency than PWC's.

The sensitive case team is set up to deal with staff cases. If you are an NRP or PWC, you are barred from being on the sensitive case team.

If anyone not on the sensitive case team tries to access a sensitive case, an alert is sent to security. Looking at a case that isn't in your caseload is a sackable offence!

Orson_Cart_2

That isnt the case Steve40 is making, nothing to do with PWC's officiating on cases they have a personal interest. To do so is a criminal offence so Im not going to explain away the facets in public forum.

I speak from experience that a CSA employee gave me factually inaccurate information which resulted in the CSA obtaining money from me unlawfully, and Steve40's post does fit. My case has the characteristics the CSA officer was not acting impartially and went to considerable length to hide the fact I was entitled to a tribunal. It was many years later the truth was revealed and justice was delivered.

LizzieS_2

Orson_Cart wrote: »

That isnt the case Steve40 is making, nothing to do with PWC's officiating on cases they have a personal interest. To do so is a criminal offence so Im not going to explain away the facets in public forum.

I speak from experience that a CSA employee gave me factually inaccurate information which resulted in the CSA obtaining money from me unlawfully, and Steve40's post does fit. My case has the characteristics the CSA officer was not acting impartially and went to considerable length to hide the fact I was entitled to a tribunal. It was many years later the truth was revealed and justice was delivered.

To be fair, we all get the impression the csa is working more for the other party whether we are nrp or pwc. Most of that is down to the fact they tell you the story from the other side (not literally actual words, but what is normally expected for the other party to be saying).