CSA and confirmation from a manager

krystal8

Hi sou,
Excuse me but i am PWC and also NRPP, so i am on both sides of the fence and it is just my opinion! sorry if it didnt go down too well, you can never please everyone.

LizzieS_2

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 know you remember the full post I made, but just to clarify it for others as above looks unbalanced in context - I said no reductions and no tax credits.

owdslackdraws

reallyreally wrote: »

Well 3 pages long before someone got a rant on, not bad

For those reading this topic was not to cause rant or to P ppl off it was to let all you NRPs know that you dont have to supply info regarding your partner

I have no disrepect to PWC or NRPs but I have stated MY views on CSa which I am MORE than entitled to do, obviously Sou does not like this and as a person she is entitled to her own opinion, just like people are of her posts that she leaves

I do not agree with how some PWC work not do I agree withhow some NRPs work but again MY OPINION

I do hope however that this topic has helped some NRPs know what they can tell when on the phone to the happy cheerful helpful ppl they call the CSA!!!!!! lol

krystal8 wrote: »

Hi sou,
Excuse me but i am PWC and also NRPP, so i am on both sides of the fence and it is just my opinion! sorry if it didnt go down too well, you can never please everyone.

I suppose you never know what innocent comment's will hit a nerve and rattle someone, maybe it hit too close to home

Soubrette

Sorry Lizzie - I thought I was referring to a post you'd made on this thread - on too many of them at the moment

Yes, I certainly meant as you have stated and I believe reallyreally also agrees with this.

Sou

Soubrette

owdslackdraws wrote: »

I suppose you never know what innocent comment's will hit a nerve and rattle someone, maybe it hit too close to home

Being loose and free with someone else's opinion also rattles me, people can easily make an honest mistake but if you have then I would hope you would apologise.

I feel my post was very clear that I personally am not comfortable with the idea of the second families child tax credits being taken into account when working out child maintenance for a first family.

I was also very clear that my own children's tax credits are reduced because of my household income ie my partner's income, who is not the children's dad and so arguably should not be included as responsible for them.

reallyreally's first post could easily because he skim read and made a mistake -easily done. However his second post where he says that "I clearly stated" something that I clearly did not was dishonest.

Blind prejudice and dishonesty always makes me tetchy.

I wonder how many other people with 2 posts and a stick to their name will come on making more accusations?

Sou

LizzieS_2

My reasoning (which I never put at the time) was down the the number of times one or the other is brought on here as a reason for all types of upset in a posters home. I just thought something simple that couldn't change as much would allow both sides to move on without further bickering.

I did toy with the idea of having a reduction for a further nrp natural child, but decided against it as it wouldn't absolve as many disputes. In the end I decided a nrp (like pwc) having any more children would either have sufficient income to do so, or would get CB & TC for the new child.

I wasn't sure about the % themselves, other than I don't like the idea that child 1 costs 15%, child 2 5% etc - ironically when child 1 doesn't get csa, then child 2 gets 15% so it kind of defeats any logic. I certainly think whatever % is used, it should be the same for each child.

shell_542

LizzieS wrote: »

I wasn't sure about the % themselves, other than I don't like the idea that child 1 costs 15%, child 2 5% etc - ironically when child 1 doesn't get csa, then child 2 gets 15% so it kind of defeats any logic. I certainly think whatever % is used, it should be the same for each child.

I agree totally.

Edited to add, I also think that should go for the reductions for NRPs natural children in a new relationship as well while reductions are used.

stressed_eric_4

I'm being a bit thick but to clarify, if i'm asked (which i haven't been) if i get ctc and i say no (it goes into my wifes account and she deals with it all i truthfully couldn't tell you what we get) then even if they access my records and it shows that we do get it because it's all in my wifes name they can't actually use it in the calculation??

Also on csa 2 i have not given them my wifes details but they did have them for csa 1 (but as mentioned before that case has been closed) could they use them in this case as although i in effect gave permission on csa 1 by giving it to them, i haven't under csa 2

thanks

shell_542

stressed_eric wrote: »

I'm being a bit thick but to clarify, if i'm asked (which i haven't been) if i get ctc and i say no (it goes into my wifes account and she deals with it all i truthfully couldn't tell you what we get) then even if they access my records and it shows that we do get it because it's all in my wifes name they can't actually use it in the calculation??



thanks

Going back to the OP I don't think this is correct.

Yes tax credits are in the NRP partners name but they are ALSO in the NRPs name. It should ALWAYS be a joint claim when an NRP and NRPP are living together. It might get paid into one person's account but on the assessment forms, it is in BOTH names. If the claim is only in the NRPPs name then the couple with be committing fraud.

I can see how if an NRP was to not include child tax credits when being asked for their income, how the CSA could then argue they were not giving them the correct information and arrears could be backdated to include tax credits received.

I wouldn't go down that road.

blimey40

This post typifies the CSA.

We have cases where obviously PWC's have gone through stressful times, by the same token NRP's have also had grave difficulties seeing children and dealing with bitter ex's.

The CSA is slanted in one direction only and firmly in favour of the PWC, whatever the situation. It may lead to to frustrations, but the system cannot judge each case, and therein lies the problem.