the next step???

kelloggs36

It depends on whether he actually pays anything at all - there is a difference!

kelloggs36

You will find that there are very few who actually go to prison because they usually pay up in the end - there are a few die hards, but most are chancers who have relied upon lack of action and then are actually shocked into paying, realising the impact to their lives of actually going to prison. More NRPs have paid up than have gone to prison - and that is the main point of the threat of prison.

shell_542

But the NRPs that Dancing Shoes was referring to are not going to be able to suddenly find money. This is what gets me at the suggestion of getting a loan to pay of arrears. If the simple fact of the matter is the NRP simply couldn't afford the monthly payments the CSA were demanding (and let's face it, it happens. The CSA don't care if someone can't afford what they've calculated), how are they suddenly going to be able to afford possibly high monthly repayments on a loan?

Dancing_Shoes

kelloggs36 wrote: »

It depends on whether he actually pays anything at all - there is a difference!

Thats what I meant, if he already paid £10 per week for example as that was all he could afford then the csa said he was assessed at £20 per week and the pwc takes the csa up on their assessment then he would suddenly become non-compliant or end up with arrears just because he genuinely can't afford what they are asking for. In my view the pwc is then totally unreasonable as he may have always paid but just can't pay what they are asking

LizzieS_2

Dancing_Shoes wrote: »

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:

If you want to be pedantic compare it to an old dear being pickpocketed.

Dancing_Shoes

I wasn't;)
No I wouldn't want a pick pocket to go to prison I would see that as a waste of resources.

Anyway that is completely off topic, what I was trying to say was that sometimes when nrp's are deemed "non-compliant" by the CSA they aren't always "non-complaint" as they may have already been contributing but not to the level of the assessment. On csa2 they don't take into account your household expenditure so if they have had to buy a new house etc then they will not be recieving the level of income they will be assessed on iyswim. Therefore I think that it is the nrp who is in the right in those cases and the pwc knowing the nrp can't afford what the csa assess at but goes ahead with it anyway. This only applies when the nrp is paying anyway and it is truthful that what they are paying is what they can afford.

Are you suggesting that the pwc is in the right pushing an amount they know isn't affordable if the nrp has had to start again? Particularly if they have walked away from their divorce/seperation with nothing or very little

That to me is money grabbing!

LizzieS_2

A pwc would not know what a nrp can afford as neither share finances in detail. The major problem here is expenses - what one person deems acceptable or essential, another does not.

I cannot see how paying less than a csa assessment can be viewed as compliant.

For the £20 assessment, income taking account of the lowest possible number of children would be £160pw - that immediately suggests less than full-time hours on NMW so affordability is to some extent a personal choice. Taking the maximum income possible of £184, you have to assume paying for 1 child while having 3 others in nrp household - there's a whole lot of potential disputes there as we all know.

Dancing_Shoes

The examples I have used are just that examples. The reason I gave them is that for example a mand leaves the marital home with nothing leaving equity in the house for the pwc and all the furniture etc. He has to buy furniture, pay for a mortgage or rent etc but this is not taken into account, I think we agree that a home to live in is an essential item, plus if they still have their children to stay then they need to ensure there is anough room and furniture for their children so if he offers £10 per week as this is what he can afford and proves this to the pwc (some are still on friendly terms) then how could you think it is fair to take him through the csa to make him pay what he can't afford?
Surely this has then become about "getting what you can" from the nrp rather than being fair and it being about the welfare of the children?
In that scenario is the nrp likely to maintain a civil relationship with his ex?

Our scenario is the opposite, we paid a significant sum every month through a private agreement but it was never enough:rolleyes:, therefore she took us through the csa telling us she would take as much more as she could.....it totally backfired and she is now getting significantly less as we were "overpaying" her (which we knew as we had the figures;)) but she was so awful to us that when she phoned us crying totally backtracking and telling us that the csa assessment meant she couldn't afford her bills my husband simply said "you reap what you sow" and we have refused to pay her under a private agreement now. Even the woman at the csa has admitted that she would alwasy advocate a private agreement as it gets very nasty in most cases through the csa. So we are paying our csa assessed amount and will continue to do so until we have to stop paying and then we won't pay her another penny so obviously we are in the right as we are "compliant" where the csa are concerned;)

LizzieS_2

Dancing_Shoes wrote: »

Our scenario is the opposite, we paid a significant sum every month through a private agreement but it was never enough:rolleyes:, therefore she took us through the csa telling us she would take as much more as she could.....it totally backfired and she is now getting significantly less as we were "overpaying" her (which we knew as we had the figures;)) but she was so awful to us that when she phoned us crying totally backtracking and telling us that the csa assessment meant she couldn't afford her bills my husband simply said "you reap what you sow" and we have refused to pay her under a private agreement now. Even the woman at the csa has admitted that she would alwasy advocate a private agreement as it gets very nasty in most cases through the csa. So we are paying our csa assessed amount and will continue to do so until we have to stop paying and then we won't pay her another penny so obviously we are in the right as we are "compliant" where the csa are concerned;)

You've just shot yourself with your own point there. You have said it is unfair for a nrp to pay more than he can afford when moving from a private arrangement, but it is perfectly reasonable for a nrp to reduce his contribution if the csa assessment turns out to be less - those are double standards.

to be pc - his, he may sometimes be her, she.

Dancing_Shoes

LizzieS wrote: »

You've just shot yourself with your own point there. You have said it is unfair for a nrp to pay more than he can afford when moving from a private arrangement, but it is perfectly reasonable for a nrp to reduce his contribution if the csa assessment turns out to be less - those are double standards.

to be pc - his, he may sometimes be her, she.

Yes they are double standards. I wanted to make the point, if you are saying that it is ok and the right thing to do to follow the csa assessment then you surely agree that we have also done the right thing