CSA and confirmation from a manager

Soubrette

bdt1 wrote: »

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

Are you saying that there is no reduction for the fact that your OH has responsibility for 4 children in his household, that they only take 2 ie his natural children, into consideration when working out his maintenance payments?

Sou

reallyreally

Soubrette wrote: »

Are you saying that there is no reduction for the fact that your OH has responsibility for 4 children in his household, that they only take 2 ie his natural children, into consideration when working out his maintenance payments?

Sou

BDT you should be given an allowance on how many children are in your house not on whether they are natual children, step children are also inc in this, in your instance from what I can gather from your post this means 4 not 2!!

Soubrette

reallyreally wrote: »

BDT you should be given an allowance on how many children are in your house not on whether they are natual children, step children are also inc in this, in your instance from what I can gather from your post this means 4 not 2!!

If this is correct then if a person gets a reduction in child maintenance because they have responsibility for say two step children (not talking about bdt1 here - just in general), why is then not fair that the child tax credits count as income?

So when it comes to reducing child maintenance, the unrelated children should count, but when it comes to increasing payments - they shouldn't count?

Is it possible to believe one is fair and one is unfair and yet still be consistent in an overall view to being fair in an impartial way to both NRP and PWC?

Sou

bdt1

Yes they are only giving us an allowance for our 2 natural children in the household. But as previously said our case is at Tribunal this month, as they have also included as NRPP income, our child benefit for 4 children, NRPP CSA monies paid for 2 children from 1st marriage, tax credits for the 4 children in houshold and also NRPP comapny expenses reimbursement ona a monthly basis. This has happened as Criminal Compliance involved by PWC as she took us to previous Tribunal on basis of 'income inconsistent with earnings' she lost so roped in CC, they looked at our bank statements, yet didn't take out of equation the abovem we have statements to prove it, CSA appeals say they can/can't dpenends who you speak to change it, but after all we were told we are better going to Tribunal, as if CSA Appeals change the assessment and associated alleged arrears, then PWC can appeal against CSA Appeals decision to change assessment, so we may end up at Tribunal anyway - so they say best to get it over and done with in the 1st instance, ok for them to say the stress is horrendous

bdt1

Sorry I meant NRP income not NRPP

reallyreally

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?

I believe that NRP should pay the same unless they get a pay rise, ppl are not going to agree with me on this, only there money gets taking into account, not whether they live with someone who has children, or don't, not if they have a joint income, his partners should never be taken into account, if they continue to have children together then they are going to get money for that person, however I dont see why the NRP payments for his previous children should change, if they knew what they were paying and unless a pay rise was happening then no hassle would be caused, I dont agree with CTC being taken into account the amount that gets taken into account is far more than the £4-£5 reduction given for other children in the household, this isnt fair, if NRP knew what they were paying and it didnt change whether they had more children then they know, they dont start fretting about if they have another child can they afford it, does it mean there payments go up cos they get more CTC why should any family be made to feel like that when they want a child together, this is what effect CSA have on families...

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

NO course it isnt in my opinion, I believe every child should have there mum and dad around regardless of whether they live together, but thats in the perfect world, no-one can make people see there kids, unfortunately and is beyond belief some ppl decide they dont want and I will never understand why but they do, if they dont want to see them why cant they support them, they are not being stopped are they!! If all NRP chose not to see there kids they wouldny pay CSA would they and that isnt what I am saying, I put that if PWC stop NRP from having access whilst happily taking there CSA payments, then they should have there CSA stopped, if they are not being prevented from having access then pay.... children shouldnt be missed out from either

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?


Yes I am saying that, who withholds contact? PWC yet they still take the money dont they, so why can they do that and still get paid? They cant, therefore if they withhold contact they dont get payments,

And if who withold maintenance? NRP?

If so I dont see why they would, majority of NRP wont pay cos they can have access and thats fair enough but because there is no fairness in the system is doesnt matter to the csa they still have to pay, if certain things were easier within the whole system then I would like to think that the whole CSA thing would be alot easier for NRP

At the moment the only person it is easy for is the PWC cos they can get money coming out of there ears for doing nothing and can call the shots on the children involved too, therefore causing alot of problems for the NRP who then refuses to pay (example) and then it all starts coming down around him, the NRP are in a no win situation

reallyreally

Soubrette wrote: »

If this is correct then if a person gets a reduction in child maintenance because they have responsibility for say two step children (not talking about bdt1 here - just in general), why is then not fair that the child tax credits count as income?

So when it comes to reducing child maintenance, the unrelated children should count, but when it comes to increasing payments - they shouldn't count?

Is it possible to believe one is fair and one is unfair and yet still be consistent in an overall view to being fair in an impartial way to both NRP and PWC?

Sou

In my ideal csa world I would prefer no deducitons as previously stated in a post!

I was merely informing BDT that she should have a reduction for 4 not 2, because this is how the CSA work, not on how I would like it too!!!

bdt1

Sou, I'm a PWC and NRPP so can see both sides, but all I'm saying is that the children of the PWC and NRP are their business, and responsibility, not associated partners or step-children, I do believe that for step-children no tax credits should be counted as after all this money is allocated for the child not the NRPP PWC assessment. I have 4 children 2 of whom from 1st marriage 2 with my hubs NRP, why should my 1st husbands children's CTC be used and given to another family/child/children as income, surely this is purely for the 2 children to my 1st hubs? I know not all will agree, as apparently an allowance is usually made on CS1 for step-children so that this counter acts in any assessment, but all I'm saying is that in my experience this is not the case - will it be child benefit next - I do not deny the PWC or 1st family monies, but do object to a 2nd family, child allowances then being passed to the 1st as part if the assessment

Soubrette

Yes, assuming an NRP refuses to pay maintenance then yes - is it acceptable to withhold for the PWC to withhold access to the children?

When I say ok - I don't mean acceptable in a moral sense, I mean acceptable as in a person has that choice - sorry for not making that clear.

Out of interest - what do you feel is a fair proportion of salary to pay as child maintenance and do you feel that if the level was set at this then all NRPs would pay?

Ignore my previous about reductions for further children and the counting of CTC as I believe you have now answered it - as I read it you feel counting anything except income is unfair which is perfectly consistent and makes sense.

Sou

Soubrette

bdt1 wrote: »

Sou, I'm a PWC and NRPP so can see both sides, but all I'm saying is that the children of the PWC and NRP are their business, and responsibility, not associated partners or step-children, I do believe that for step-children no tax credits should be counted as after all this money is allocated for the child not the NRPP PWC assessment. I have 4 children 2 of whom from 1st marriage 2 with my hubs NRP, why should my 1st husbands children's CTC be used and given to another family/child/children as income, surely this is purely for the 2 children to my 1st hubs? I know not all will agree, as apparently an allowance is usually made on CS1 for step-children so that this counter acts in any assessment, but all I'm saying is that in my experience this is not the case - will it be child benefit next - I do not deny the PWC or 1st family monies, but do object to a 2nd family, child allowances then being passed to the 1st as part if the assessment

I think they have your assessment wrong but I have no direct experience of stepchildren.

I'm actually inconsistent in my view - a family tends to benefit from the income of the household it is in so I feel a second family should be taken into account, after all if the first family had stayed together and further children were born - all the children would have less spent on them, assuming income stays stable.

I'm uncomfortable for the NRPPs child credits to be used as part of the assessment yet I am perfectly happy for my own child tax credits to be based on both mine and my other half's income thereby leading to a reduction in my children's tax credits.

I don't really know how to bring those contradictory beliefs together though I'm am glad that they don't mean I believe it's ok to screw over the other side though

Sou