csa liars

Loopy_Girl

Blob wrote: »

Sorry to have to tell you that you are wrong, they will take it all and make it not worth you getting more jobs, I have seem the papers from people that this has happend to. They also try to take money of the partners of the NRP as well, and before you say that they dont they are trying it with mine!!!

No I'm not wrong....like the sun rises in the morning, it can be guaranteed that you 'have seen papers from people' Blob.

If you work extra then you will pay a proportion of your extra pay to the CSA - NOT it all. And if you're going to come on and say otherwise then show me proof.

And yes I agree, they do try to take NRPP's wages into consideration for CSA1 cases (which haven't been incepted since 2003) and as it has always been said on here and the advice given is that if you earn less than the NRP then it is in the benefit to give the NRPP details. But no one is forcing them to give details.

chriszzz

I think it all stinks!!!! The csa have got it all wrong, NRPP income should most definetely not be considered for the pwc children.

No wonder there is so much un-rest, and thats because its not fair, money from the second family should not be took into consideration, other than the wage earned from the nrp not the nrpp and her children.

Thing is pwc who have a new partner, there income is not took into account, because pwcp should not contribute to the maintenance of the pwc children and yet on the otherhand the nrpp income is took into account when calculating the maintenance for the nrp children.

NO DEFO NOT RIGHT!!!!!!!!:mad:

Blob

LG please talk to someone that will listen sure you will find someone!

Loopy_Girl

chriszzz wrote: »

I think it all stinks!!!! The csa have got it all wrong, NRPP income should most definetely not be considered for the pwc children.

I agree wholeheartedly with you Chris...and historically have never said otherwise. It's one of the reasons that CSA1 was abolished and quite rightly so. A NRP should pay for their own kids from their own wages.

I also don't agree with tax credits being used either in calculations. It's not right

LizzieS_2

chriszzz wrote: »

Thing is pwc who have a new partner, there income is not took into account, because pwcp should not contribute to the maintenance of the pwc children and yet on the otherhand the nrpp income is took into account when calculating the maintenance for the nrp children.

nrrp income is not taken into account to calculate maintainance - it is only taken into account to work out if the household can afford the payment the nrp should make.

I'm on csa2 and a can guarantee the pwpc has little choice other than to contribute to all my children.

Valli

Loopy_Girl wrote: »

This is 2009 - sorry I don't agree but there is child poverty in working families in the UK...not with our generous benefit/WTC system.

And quite frankly, any parent that allows their child to 'live in poverty' should be done for child abuse. If money is tight then there are plenty second, third or even fourth jobs out there to make sure that children aren't in 'poverty'.

If any child is living in poverty then it sure as hell isn't the CSA fault:rolleyes:

Any yeah, to back this up, I DO have 4 jobs...and I'm a lone parent with very limited support around me. I'd rather die then ever think my daughter could live in poverty. I want a nice life so I will go out and bloody work for it and not blame any Government agencies.

But with all due respect (and I am a single parent) a parent who has children resident with him/her should not have to work excessive hours - that parent should be able to spend some quality time with the children. So that parent should not be working more than normal 'full time' hours...

Since the 'current' definition of poverty suggests that the family does not have, say, a DVD player and similar 'luxuries'.the definition of poverty is IMHO somewhat blurred.

Personally I feel that true poverty would be NOT having sufficient food, adequate housing (ie a bed for each child), and decent, suitable clothing.

And, incidentally, my ex IS better off than me in that he is working F/T and living with a partner working F/T (all her children are adult AFAIK) but only HIS wages are taken into account when his contribution is calculated.
Mind you, at one time he 'withheld' half of it 'as he needed it to entertain the kids when he had them on a saturday'.
What a laugh. he took them to tesco and spent it - it was his weekly shopping !!!!!!...
Nice judge soon put him right!

Loopy_Girl

Valli wrote: »

But with all due respect (and I am a single parent) a parent who has children resident with him/her should not have to work excessive hours - that parent should be able to spend some quality time with the children. So that parent should not be working more than normal 'full time' hours...

Since the 'current' definition of poverty suggests that the family does not have, say, a DVD player and similar 'luxuries'.the definition of poverty is IMHO somewhat blurred.

Personally I feel that true poverty would be NOT having sufficient food, adequate housing (ie a bed for each child), and decent, suitable clothing.

And, incidentally, my ex IS better off than me in that he is working F/T and living with a partner working F/T (all her children are adult AFAIK) but only HIS wages are taken into account when his contribution is calculated.
Mind you, at one time he 'withheld' half of it 'as he needed it to entertain the kids when he had them on a saturday'.
What a laugh. he took them to tesco and spent it - it was his weekly shopping !!!!!!...
Nice judge soon put him right!

Great post I actually agree with you about the definition of poverty and what you would define as 'being impoverished'. Of course the DWP way of ascertaining poverty is living on less than the current JSA/IS and CTC rates.

As for the working X amount of hours then the way I see it is that I am not in a 'traditional' family set up i.e 2 parents so unfortunately I do not have the luxury of working 'traditional' hours. It's my choice though. I do it partly out of guilt as it's not my daughter's fault that her father doesn't contribute and also partly as I like a nice lifestyle.
I do enjoy many hours of quality time with her also. My main job is school hours, one job is a Saturday morning so she gets to spend quailty time with her grandparents, 1 job she can mostly come with me (mystery shopping) and the other one I do when she is in bed anyway. Personally I feel it's all about finding what works for the family and also getting income in the house. None of my jobs are going to make me rich but collectively they bring income into the house which is boosted with my tax credits. Yes I am pretty knackered mostly and Red Bull do a roaring trade from me but you do what you need to for your kids. Should her father start to pay CS then I can probably stop the Sat morning job...she would still go to her grandparents though as they love to see her and she gets spoiled rotten - but that's what Nana's and Grandad's are for!!!

chriszzz

LizzieS wrote: »

nrrp income is not taken into account to calculate maintainance - it is only taken into account to work out if the household can afford the payment the nrp should make.

I'm on csa2 and a can guarantee the pwpc has little choice other than to contribute to all my children.

I dont understand how csa works,tbh I have never really been interested in working it out, I read peoples posts and take it from what they say and some have said that once they have took the nrpp income into consideration, the nrp has had to pay more towards the pwc children.

So me being me thinks ehhh!! Thats not right and then will have a say on how unfair it is.

After reading the posts, there is defo an unrest with the way the csa approaches both pwc and nrp, and for some who owe arrears the csa want it paid bk in two years and basically putting that family in poverty, thats wrong!! the nrp should pay his maintenance and what HE can afford ontop to pay off the arrears. Then everyone should be happy.

kelloggs36

chriszzz wrote: »

I think it all stinks!!!! The csa have got it all wrong, NRPP income should most definetely not be considered for the pwc children.

No wonder there is so much un-rest, and thats because its not fair, money from the second family should not be took into consideration, other than the wage earned from the nrp not the nrpp and her children.

Thing is pwc who have a new partner, there income is not took into account, because pwcp should not contribute to the maintenance of the pwc children and yet on the otherhand the nrpp income is took into account when calculating the maintenance for the nrp children.

NO DEFO NOT RIGHT!!!!!!!!:mad:

So if the NRP has to pay MORE because the NRPP income is ignored under CS1, do you think that is right then? That is what happens a lot of the time - the wages are not counted to calculate what should be paid. What happens is either the NRP pays the full amount, or pays LESS when a partner declares income becuase of the protected income. Without the NRPP details, there would be LESS protected income overall and so a higher chance that they have to pay the full amount rather than a lesser amount.

chriszzz

kelloggs36 wrote: »

So if the NRP has to pay MORE because the NRPP income is ignored under CS1, do you think that is right then? That is what happens a lot of the time - the wages are not counted to calculate what should be paid. What happens is either the NRP pays the full amount, or pays LESS when a partner declares income becuase of the protected income. Without the NRPP details, there would be LESS protected income overall and so a higher chance that they have to pay the full amount rather than a lesser amount.

The only time csa should need the income of the nrpp is when there are other kids invoved ie; if the nrpp goes on to have children with him, then I think the csa should want the income of both to make sure that he does have his protected income and paying the reduced amount of csa due to him fathering another child.

If the nrpp has her own children, then the nrp still should be paying the same amount of csa to the pwc, because the nrpp should really be receiving csa from their ex partner as posters on here have said, a pwcp shouldnt have to pay for the pwc children.