the next step???

kelloggs36

They only have to take action that they feel is worth taking - if they have evidence that he has nothing of value, then they can cite that as a reason for skipping that action.

Dancing_Shoes

I wasn't going to post on this thread.....;)
Am I reading it correctly that you are eager to find out what will happen to your ex as he has avoided payment?
Yes I agree that nrp's who avoid payment are the lowest sort of people but do you really want to see balliffs go round to his house or him put in prison?
I just don't understand the need for a tit for tat society? 2 wrongs surely don't make a right
If I have misjudged then I apologise

loobyloo0302

smoothassilk wrote: »

after a LO is granted whats the next step??

i only ask as most of the action ive heard the csa could take wouldnt work with my ex i.e baliffs or going through his bank account, so would the csa still waste time trying to do these things?

Can I just ask as I'm a tad worried now.. I think I've previously mentioned that my partner was informed in may that he had overpaid by £291 and that he would shortly be recieving a cheque. This never happened, but around two or three months later I think, he had a phonecall from them requesting his bank details (definitely was the csa as he was instructed to call them back on the phone number you see on their letters) as they said that they would be directing the money straight into his bank account... were they telling the truth with regards to this or has he been duped into giving his bank details for them to snoop through???

LizzieS_2

Dancing_Shoes wrote: »

Yes I agree that nrp's who avoid payment are the lowest sort of people but do you really want to see balliffs go round to his house or him put in prison?

If he had mugged an old dear, the vast majority of people would want to see him in prison. I really don't see the difference of opinion when he has effectively stolen from his own children

kelloggs36

I agree Lizzie - those who have deliberately gone out of their way should NOT be allowed to get away with it which is effectively what Dancing Shoes is advocating - if you don't take tough action they will have been allowed to just rescind from their responsibilities. I don't want to live in a society where we just let everybody off their misdemeanours because it causes them inconvenience - especially when the victims are the children that they helped to bring into this world. You know the saying, If you can't do the time, don't do the crime! I don't buy this two wrongs don't make a right - the punishment of somebody who has broken the law (which they will have) is not a wrong - it is a given and should be undertaken at every opportunity where the NRP has been proven to refuse to pay. If the CSA had done that much earlier in its existence, I don't believe we would have half the problems of non-compliance that we have now. The message got out that they were a soft touch and they were and now they are changing, people are complaining!!!!!!! I'm certainly not one of those - I think it is utterly right that these NRPs are made to pay.

Dancing_Shoes

kelloggs36 wrote: »

I agree Lizzie - those who have deliberately gone out of their way should NOT be allowed to get away with it which is effectively what Dancing Shoes is advocating - if you don't take tough action they will have been allowed to just rescind from their responsibilities. I don't want to live in a society where we just let everybody off their misdemeanours because it causes them inconvenience - especially when the victims are the children that they helped to bring into this world. You know the saying, If you can't do the time, don't do the crime! I don't buy this two wrongs don't make a right - the punishment of somebody who has broken the law (which they will have) is not a wrong - it is a given and should be undertaken at every opportunity where the NRP has been proven to refuse to pay. If the CSA had done that much earlier in its existence, I don't believe we would have half the problems of non-compliance that we have now. The message got out that they were a soft touch and they were and now they are changing, people are complaining!!!!!!! I'm certainly not one of those - I think it is utterly right that these NRPs are made to pay.

I am certainly not advocating someone shirking their responsibilities:rolleyes:
I agree there should be measures in place to ensure that nrp's who avoid payment have some sort of punishment but what I was saying is that surely as the ex partner and mother of their children you wouldn't want this
Sometimes nrp's are requested to pay an amount that they cannot afford, this could be due to outgoings etc and if they had remained with the pwc they may not have contributed that amount so each case is VERY different so in those scenarios those nrp's are stealing from their children as they wouldn't have had that amount if they had remained together (iyswim?). The biggest problem I can see with the way the CSA runs both previously and in the future is that a blanket size just doesn't fit all, and no I don't have an answer to that one but there are so many posts where people really struggle to build a life post break-up/divorce and the CSA doesn't allow you to do that sometimes. I am sure that most people when having children with someone believe that relationship will last forever and it is very sad when that is no longer the case (especially for the children) but when I hear that the nrp has "stolen" from the children when they can't afford the CSA amount but ARE already contributing what they can then it makes me think the world has gone mad;)

Dancing_Shoes

LizzieS wrote: »

If he had mugged an old dear, the vast majority of people would want to see him in prison. I really don't see the difference of opinion when he has effectively stolen from his own children

But who is to say that he would have been contributing the amount assessed had he stayed in the relationship?
I think you know Lizzie that physical violence is VERY different to child maintenance:rolleyes:

chriszzz

Dancing_Shoes wrote: »

I am certainly not advocating someone shirking their responsibilities:rolleyes:
I agree there should be measures in place to ensure that nrp's who avoid payment have some sort of punishment but what I was saying is that surely as the ex partner and mother of their children you wouldn't want this
Sometimes nrp's are requested to pay an amount that they cannot afford, this could be due to outgoings etc and if they had remained with the pwc they may not have contributed that amount so each case is VERY different so in those scenarios those nrp's are stealing from their children as they wouldn't have had that amount if they had remained together (iyswim?). The biggest problem I can see with the way the CSA runs both previously and in the future is that a blanket size just doesn't fit all, and no I don't have an answer to that one but there are so many posts where people really struggle to build a life post break-up/divorce and the CSA doesn't allow you to do that sometimes. I am sure that most people when having children with someone believe that relationship will last forever and it is very sad when that is no longer the case (especially for the children) but when I hear that the nrp has "stolen" from the children when they can't afford the CSA amount but ARE already contributing what they can then it makes me think the world has gone mad;)

Dancing Shoes,

Its the bitter, single minded people who have made it go mad,

At least you can look at yourself and be thankful that your not in that category :A

kelloggs36

Dancing_Shoes wrote: »

I wasn't going to post on this thread.....;)
Am I reading it correctly that you are eager to find out what will happen to your ex as he has avoided payment?
Yes I agree that nrp's who avoid payment are the lowest sort of people but do you really want to see balliffs go round to his house or him put in prison?So what do you suggest, if you aren't advocating letting him off???
I just don't understand the need for a tit for tat society? 2 wrongs surely don't make a rightWhat do you think will make them pay then?
If I have misjudged then I apologise

............................................

Dancing_Shoes

If you read my previous posts you will see that I never advocate letting the nrp who doesn't contribute off the hook:rolleyes:

I don't have the answer but it appeared that the op was keen for her nrp to have baliffs go round (although she said it wouldn't turn anything up) and then we started talking about prison etc. I am sure there are many nrps who avoid maintenance who would much rather serve a sentance than pay so how will this help the children anyway?

Are you saying that for example if an nrp goes to the pwc and says "because of my outgoings in building my new life I can only afford to pay you £10 per week" then the pwc goes to the csa and they say he has to pay £20 per week which the pwc knows he can't afford and goes for it anyway who is in the right and who is in the wrong? There are a few cases on here that are exactly that example.