CSA and confirmation from a manager

owdslackdraws

reallyreally wrote: »

Ring them up and ask how someone could have got hold of your details, also ask for a copy of your file you are within your rights to do this, regardles sof what they say to you, you do not have to tell them why you want it either, even though they will say well we dont just give it out, or sorry we cant do that, they can and if you ask for it, they have to oblige, despite them not liking it one bit!! See what you get from there firstly

So many PWC have received the NRP details through errors on CSA's half is unbelieveable and they still to this day refuse to say it is there fault

Seriously do something about it

i will write and get a copy of file see what that contains, take the bull by the horns as they say

reallyreally

owdslackdraws wrote: »

i will write and get a copy of file see what that contains, take the bull by the horns as they say

Definately good luck, absolutely nothing to worry about in obtaining the information you are entitled to

stressed_eric_4

Just a thought, my case used to be under csa1 and due to having a child with my new wife we gave the csa her details, however my ex wife was advised she would get more money under csa2, so she closed the case down and then re-opened it 13 weeks later. Would the CSA still be able to access this information or does it disappear off the computer system as we have been moved to csa2? Also if they had these details under csa 1 and I have not been asked if I have a partner now would they be able to use these??

Donedoingdebt

reallyreally wrote: »

Does your husband/partner pay into a Pension, one word of advice 100% of the Pension contribution gets taken into account, therefore perhaps increasing it would significantly help you,

Only on CS2. On CS1, only half the pension payment is is given as an allowance.

When CS3 (CMEC) is up & running, I believe this allowance may be stopping as they are to base the assessment on gross income.

However, on an earlier thread, some months ago, there were some posters that suggested there had been a change in this proposal & that some or all of any pension payment may still be allowed. Clearly, this needs to be clarified before the CS3 system is up & running.

Soubrette

reallyreally wrote: »

In those circumstances yes, but what if they dont have children with them? Which nearly half dont!

And CSA do not just take into account a % of the CTC they take it all in, that is why there are so many raw posts on this because it is ludicrous, whether the children the NRPs lives with are his or not! The NRP and his partner gets penalised for the amount of children living with them, something that should never be allowed to happen, it should solely be done on the NRPs income ONLY and if they receive WTC then a % of that aswell not something thats doesnt even belong to the NRP and would be paid whether the NRP lived there or not! Which is what the CSA fail to understand the NRP partner will get the CTC regardless of whether the NRP lives there or not which just goes to show how unfair it is

Do you agree with Lizzie then? that any further children either step children or further natural children should not mean a reduction in the child maintenance paid to the first natural children?

I personally don't but I would be interested in your take on this as you also seem to be saying that it should be the NRPs income and only this which is relevent.

Also does this also mean that a first families CTC.WTC should not be reduced (in your opinion) if the PWC has a partner that earns enough to cause a reduction in that household's tax credits?

Sorry edited to add this - what about NRPs who do not want to keep in contact with their children - should they be forced to? Perhaps having to pay more child support if they don't?

Sou

reallyreally

Soubrette wrote: »

Do you agree with Lizzie then? that any further children either step children or further natural children should not mean a reduction in the child maintenance paid to the first natural children?

I personally don't but I would be interested in your take on this as you also seem to be saying that it should be the NRPs income and only this which is relevent.

Also does this also mean that a first families CTC.WTC should not be reduced (in your opinion) if the PWC has a partner that earns enough to cause a reduction in that household's tax credits?

Sorry edited to add this - what about NRPs who do not want to keep in contact with their children - should they be forced to? Perhaps having to pay more child support if they don't?

Sou

Reductions shldnt happen at all, this meaning that the payments are not reduced at the NRPs side because he has step children or natural children of his own, it goes on his wages and any other income in his name that is it, he supports his children, the NRP partner either chooses to claim CSA for her children with her previous partner should there be any or not and if not then accepts that the NRP pays for his children from a previous relationship/marriage, the nrp partner should not be inc in any assessments, she was not there when they were conceived therefore shouldnt be made to pay for her partners children same for the PWC partner

If a NRP doesnt want to see there children then obviously that is there decision, but should pay maintenance as they are choosing to not see them rather than being told they cant, I feel that is a completely different situation to being made to pay and not allowed to see, rather than choosing if you want to see them, if they choose not to they should still pay as they are not being prevented are they?

reallyreally

stressed_eric wrote: »

Just a thought, my case used to be under csa1 and due to having a child with my new wife we gave the csa her details, however my ex wife was advised she would get more money under csa2, so she closed the case down and then re-opened it 13 weeks later. Would the CSA still be able to access this information or does it disappear off the computer system as we have been moved to csa2? Also if they had these details under csa 1 and I have not been asked if I have a partner now would they be able to use these??

I believe that once a case is closed down it is closed, usually if a person wants a case to be closed they can write to CSA requesting that all information be taken off and CSA are usually pretty damn slow in doing this, I would be surprised that if you are under CSA2 now and they wanted to know about your partner and they had access to CSA1 claim they would have let you know about it, I am assuming you are referring to things that are in your wifes name, they cant just access them, they have to gain your permission to do so or hers, thats why CSA are so wrong in what they do!

bdt1

Sorry, I agree with you on this one reallyreally. My hubs NRP has 2 kids to PWC, we have 2 together and I have 2 from 1st marriage, so, CSA take CTC for my 4 children (only 2 NRP'S) some would say, yes but a calculation allowance is made to offset any children in the household, but in my experience we have only been awarded a child allowance for our natural children (2). So, CSA allow PWC income from NRPP 4 children, but only give NRP allowance for his 2 natural children with NRPP - immoral, but hey this is the CSA, they do as and when they like, without any consideration or respect - I don't know how some of these people sleep at night, but our case as some know is horrendous, soon to be sorted we hope - til the next hurdle

Soubrette

reallyreally wrote: »

Reductions shldnt happen at all, this meaning that the payments are not reduced at the NRPs side because he has step children or natural children of his own, it goes on his wages and any other income in his name that is it, he supports his children, the NRP partner either chooses to claim CSA for her children with her previous partner should there be any or not and if not then accepts that the NRP pays for his children from a previous relationship/marriage, the nrp partner should not be inc in any assessments, she was not there when they were conceived therefore shouldnt be made to pay for her partners children same for the PWC partner

I'm sorry but I am confused. Are you saying that if he pays say 15% of income for his first family, then moves in with a person who has two children already ie they are not his. Then they have a further child together, the NRP shoulls still be paying the same as before he started this new relationship ie 15% of income?

If a NRP doesnt want to see there children then obviously that is there decision, but should pay maintenance as they are choosing to not see them rather than being told they cant, I feel that is a completely different situation to being made to pay and not allowed to see, rather than choosing if you want to see them, if they choose not to they should still pay as they are not being prevented are they?

So it is ok to choose to not see your children but not ok to choose not to pay for them?

Are you then saying that if they are prevented from seeing their children then it would be ok to withhold maintenance? What if they withhold maintenance - is it then fair to withhold contact?

Thanks for taking the trouble to answer - I'm always interested in other people's pov

Sou

reallyreally

Exactly BDT you get CTC for your 4 children, yet CSA dont think about only taking a % of the allowance of CTC for your partners 2 children, thats why the system is so wrong, families like yourself are being penalised for having more children and the other children that money is going to are receiving there CTC plus some other childs, its should be stopped immediately