CSA help please

Kimitatsu

speedster wrote: »

they are legally obliged to assess you on your current level of earnings.

if you provide this info via projected income figures they are legally bound to act on it.

You would have to prove though that your projected figures are accurate - either because you have taken over an existing business or that you have now formed into a new company. Otherwise anyone could say that they are earning less than £5000 a year and will only have to pay a flat rate. The CSA is between a rock and a hard place, if they accept projected figures without good cause then they run the potential of ammassing huge arrears which will take time to recover, if they make a DMD then the NRP can claim hardship.

speedster wrote: »

i totally agree. i just choose not to omit highly relevant info that would help the nrp or pwc.

i get the feling a lot of members are anti nrp, as the advice given to them tends to be missing lots of relevant info.

We have had this conversation, many people that post on these boards have issues with their NRP (myself included :rolleyes:) and it is not an anti NRP feeling, this is just personal experience. The purpose of these boards is to give EVERYONE the knowledge they need to be able to make a decision on thier own case, regardless of PWC, NRP or NRPP - after all in many cases family units are now consisting of all three

Everyone has something to contribute to these boards, now all play nicely :cool:

plok

I have to agree with Speedster. When my ex first made her claim to the CSA she advised them of what I had been earning and the CSA linked their assesment of me to that figure backed-up with my accounts from the prior year. It had nothing to do with my actual income at the time of the assessment.

I had my accountants provide a projection of what my earnings would be at the end of my company's financial year. Although at first I had to deal with the dross at a local level who all seemed to think that women never lie and men always do (such generalisations are illegal with the equality laws we currently have in this country - be sure to point this out if you suffer the same from the CSA women's brigade), I finally got someone to accept my projected earnings as stated by my chartered accountants.

It is very important to have the actual year end accounts meet this projection when they are finally produced so that you and your accountants then have a prior history of factual accuracy!

Kimitatsu

cosmic_dave wrote: »

I lost my job in July and have set up a shop (which isn't making any money) ........ the shop is seasonal so it does not effect the potential shop takings at the moment.
Many Thanks

this is the problem the OP has though - it is a new shop and a seasonal one at that!

plok wrote: »

I have to agree with Speedster. When my ex first made her claim to the CSA she advised them of what I had been earning and the CSA linked their assesment of me to that figure backed-up with my accounts from the prior year. It had nothing to do with my actual income at the time of the assessment.

I had my accountants provide a projection of what my earnings would be at the end of my company's financial year. Although at first I had to deal with the dross at a local level who all seemed to think that women never lie and men always do (such generalisations are illegal with the equality laws we currently have in this country - be sure to point this out if you suffer the same from the CSA women's brigade), I finally got someone to accept my projected earnings as stated by my chartered accountants.

It is very important to have the actual year end accounts meet this projection when they are finally produced so that you and your accountants then have a prior history of factual accuracy!

Thing is Plok you had your last years accounts AND your projected accounts based on fact to work from. The OP has just set up his business and so has nothing to base his claims on.

OP if I were you I would let your ex wife go to the CSA because either way you will be better off, either you will have a DMD of £30-£40 a week dependant on the number of children OR a flat rate of £5 a week. Either one is better than the £250 a month you are currently paying.

speedster

plok wrote: »

I have to agree with Speedster. When my ex first made her claim to the CSA she advised them of what I had been earning and the CSA linked their assesment of me to that figure backed-up with my accounts from the prior year. It had nothing to do with my actual income at the time of the assessment.

I had my accountants provide a projection of what my earnings would be at the end of my company's financial year. Although at first I had to deal with the dross at a local level who all seemed to think that women never lie and men always do (such generalisations are illegal with the equality laws we currently have in this country - be sure to point this out if you suffer the same from the CSA women's brigade), I finally got someone to accept my projected earnings as stated by my chartered accountants.

It is very important to have the actual year end accounts meet this projection when they are finally produced so that you and your accountants then have a prior history of factual accuracy!

exactly.

also, a new business my not have much profit after year one. advertising, tools, computers, vehicle, setting up costs, etc, etc. will all play a part.

and like you say, if your accountant submits a projected figure, there's no reason why they cannot use this.

unfortunately, sexism does play an ugly role with the csa. compliance and lack of enforcement figures for errant female nrp's are considerably higher than for male nrp's and there are considerably less of them. :mad:

plok

Kimitatsu - I should have explained better. My prior year accounts showed considerable turnover. When my ex ran off with my child and wouldn't let me see him I stopped work and concentrated all my efforts on getting my son back.

This meant that the assessment based upon the prior year's accounts was wholly inaccurate and my accountants had to forecast a virtually NIL turnover situation for the current year. We got this accepted (finally) by the CSA. The alternative would have been huge arrears and no guarantee that at the end of the financial year those arrears would have been wiped out by a new calculation.

speedster

and no doubt, after restricting contact, she wanted financially rewarding for her actions too???

the csa are good at promoting contact blocking and rewarding them for it. :mad:

plok

Speedster, you and I know that the CSA promotes withholding of contact. The less contact with an NRP, the more they have to pay to the PWC. Equal contact (7 nights in 14) still results in the NRP paying the PWC. No wonder so many PWC's fight to withhold contact.

That said, it is the way it is due to a small minority of NRP's running away from their responsibilities. I don't think ranting here will change it. As you mentioned elsewhere we are due a change of government, now is the time to write to your MP and point out the absurd rules the CSA/CMEC adhere to. Start with 50/50 shared care through the courts as a starting point and work backwards from that. Once residence is sorted then look at the financial aspects. Whilst the two are divorced in theory, PWC's will always be incentivised to withhold contact in practice. And if CMEC have powers to dump on the NRP. give them equally punitive powers to dump pn PWC's who breach Court orders.

A joined-up approach to the government thinking on this would help - I think they call it "holistic".

In the meantime Cosmic Dave, get yourself a decent accountant and don't worry too much as it doesn;t solve anything.

speedster

plok wrote: »

Speedster, you and I know that the CSA promotes withholding of contact. The less contact with an NRP, the more they have to pay to the PWC. Equal contact (7 nights in 14) still results in the NRP paying the PWC. No wonder so many PWC's fight to withhold contact.

That said, it is the way it is due to a small minority of NRP's running away from their responsibilities. I don't think ranting here will change it. As you mentioned elsewhere we are due a change of government, now is the time to write to your MP and point out the absurd rules the CSA/CMEC adhere to. Start with 50/50 shared care through the courts as a starting point and work backwards from that. Once residence is sorted then look at the financial aspects. Whilst the two are divorced in theory, PWC's will always be incentivised to withhold contact in practice. And if CMEC have powers to dump on the NRP. give them equally punitive powers to dump pn PWC's who breach Court orders.

A joined-up approach to the government thinking on this would help - I think they call it "holistic".

In the meantime Cosmic Dave, get yourself a decent accountant and don't worry too much as it doesn;t solve anything.

if only plok!!

but that would mean us blokes having some sort of "equality" oh, silly me. that term only applies to wimmin. :rolleyes:

plok

Speedster - I've PM'd you.

speedster

got it.

noted