out of the blue arrears demand

PlayingHardball

billytsoul wrote: »

So explain why the accounts dept at Belfast themselves supplied the figures and informed me that " you're debt is not with the nrp-it is with the secretary of state"?

They were the ones who gave me the figure my exd would recieve!!

Your situation sounds different and I am guessing your ex was on benefits, so your debt will be owed to the SOS.

As I am not (on benefits), the ex's debt is entirely mine to keep.

I believe that is correct, but someone else will confirm no doubt.

billytsoul

Afraid not-my ex has worked throughout the claim.

My case was handed to a solicitors office back at end of 2007, with who I worked out and agreed a flexibe ongoing payment+arrears plan for about 3k of debt.On being informed,CSA suddenly took case back-informed me I owed 6.9k, split as previously stated-and to this day have not told me for what period the suspended debt is for, when it was suspended,nothing.

Kimitatsu

PlayingHardball wrote: »

Your situation sounds different and I am guessing your ex was on benefits, so your debt will be owed to the SOS.

As I am not (on benefits), the ex's debt is entirely mine to keep.

I believe that is correct, but someone else will confirm no doubt.

You are correct, unless you are on a means tested benefit such as housing benefit, council tax benefit IB JSA or IS then the money is not counted as income.

billytsoul wrote: »

Afraid not-my ex has worked throughout the claim.

My case was handed to a solicitors office back at end of 2007, with who I worked out and agreed a flexibe ongoing payment+arrears plan for about 3k of debt.On being informed,CSA suddenly took case back-informed me I owed 6.9k, split as previously stated-and to this day have not told me for what period the suspended debt is for, when it was suspended,nothing.

I have to ask why the CSA was relaying this information to you - regardless of where the money is going the debt is owed by you for maintenance of your children. Your ex may have worked, but it was possile that she was still claiming benefits as listed above in which case the money is deducted from her allowance and is owed to the taxpayer.

You can also ask for a breakdown of that debt under data protection and freedom of information (you need to ask for both so they cant hide behind the ruling of either one!)

Kimitatsu

billytsoul wrote: »

Are you trying to tell me that this government.............THIS GOVERNMENT??............. Set up the ridiculously expensive CSA purely as a non profit exercise to make sure that NRP's pay a rightful amount of money to the PWC???

Just how !!!!!! would you have to be????????????????????

The idea behind the CSA was to ensure that all NRP's paid something towards their children, and no it was not an entirely altruistic concept. It was so that PWC's who were on benefits would get a small amount of money for naming the NRP and the rest of the money would go back to the taxpayer to offset the amount of benefit being paid out.

The CSA came on the back of the court systems being overun with maintenance cases being sent back and forth. The idea was that the CSA would take over the entire jurisdiction so freeing up court time.

speedster

Kimitatsu wrote: »

The idea behind the CSA was to ensure that all NRP's paid something towards their children, and no it was not an entirely altruistic concept. It was so that PWC's who were on benefits would get a small amount of money for naming the NRP and the rest of the money would go back to the taxpayer to offset the amount of benefit being paid out.

The CSA came on the back of the court systems being overun with maintenance cases being sent back and forth. The idea was that the CSA would take over the entire jurisdiction so freeing up court time.

very true.

i think the main gripe is when this gov. keep harping on about erradicating child poverty, when in fact most of the money goes to the SOS, whilst leaving second families living on less than IS levels with their children in genuine poverty.

it's spin and propaganda at it's best.

nrp's are seen as the scum of the earth in the eyes of the public and the csa.

kelloggs36

billytsoul wrote: »

Wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

the PWC loses the money because if the NRP had paid they would have had the money as income and therefore recieved less WFTC-so they have to pay it back!!

Neither loans or child maintenance are counted as income so you are wrong I'm afraid. In the past, maintenance would have been counted in respect of benefits being claimed - so if any money is due to the SofS, it will either be a mistake on the account if your ex was working over 16 hours per week all the time, or she was claiming benefits.

kelloggs36

billytsoul wrote: »

So explain why the accounts dept at Belfast themselves supplied the figures and informed me that " you're debt is not with the nrp-it is with the secretary of state"?

They were the ones who gave me the figure my exd would recieve!!

I don't know the context under which the conversation took place, nor do I know your circumstances.

kelloggs36

billytsoul wrote: »

Wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

the PWC loses the money because if the NRP had paid they would have had the money as income and therefore recieved less WFTC-so they have to pay it back!!

Child maintenance has never counted for working tax credits

kelloggs36

Speedster - you are confusing matters. NRP working tax credits and child tax credits are counted as income for calculating child support. Under CS1 if the PWC were in receipt of working tax credit then they would be deemed to have nil income - odd, but that is the case. Under CS2 no PWC income is counted under any circumstances so it is irrelevant whether they get any or not.

kelloggs36

speedster wrote: »

correct me if i'm wrong but i thought CM wasn't counted as pwc income. only nrp's?

In what context?