CSA & son's 16

Sidekick_2

LizzieS wrote: »

It is intended to cover endless situations, but the most common will be a child leaving school at 16 and neither working nor continuing studies - CB will continue for 20 weeks providing child registers with connextions, so CM will also continue. In short, that paragraph is just there to cover the maximum 20 week extentions where child is neither studying or working.

Yes I believe this is the case

However I have heard of someone, who won an appeal against paying CM even though the 20 week extention has been granted. :T

shell_542

LizzieS wrote: »

I assume you mean this part?



It is intended to cover endless situations, but the most common will be a child leaving school at 16 and neither working nor continuing studies - CB will continue for 20 weeks providing child registers with connextions, so CM will also continue. In short, that paragraph is just there to cover the maximum 20 week extentions where child is neither studying or working.

Then they should have worded it better because it looks like they are insinuating any child aged 16 or 17, still living at home and who has left full time education but is not working still qualifies for child support.

We know that the above is the case for child benefit but child support is not the same. It's not hard for them to word things a little more clearly on their website so as not to confuse the reader.

Rare_3

This confusion has probably caused some NRP to pay more than they should have.
I wonder if the NRP would get this money back (if found out) off the PWC?
I would love to hear from anyone this has happened too.

Rare

Loopy_Girl

Rare wrote: »

This confusion has probably caused some NRP to pay more than they should have.
I wonder if the NRP would get this money back (if found out) off the PWC?
I would love to hear from anyone this has happened too.

Rare

If there was a case to be found like that then the CSA would pay the NRP a refund from the coffers (i.e tax payers money). The money would not be persued from the PWC as their stance is that it could leave child(ren) in poverty.

shell_542

Loopy_Girl wrote: »

If there was a case to be found like that then the CSA would pay the NRP a refund from the coffers (i.e tax payers money). The money would not be persued from the PWC as their stance is that it could leave child(ren) in poverty.

All the more reason for them to ensure that they are giving out correct information so as the tax payers don't have to pay for their mistakes.

Rare_3

Pitty the coffers don't pay my maintanance

On a serious note, I can see your point about child poverty, but the money would have been overpaid, so in effect not needed by the PWC.
What comes around, goes around!

Rare

Loopy_Girl

Rare wrote: »

Pitty the coffers don't pay my maintanance

On a serious note, I can see your point about child poverty, but the money would have been overpaid, so in effect not needed by the PWC.
What comes around, goes around!

Rare

I agree with you but if the PWC didn't know that she was to get the money (as the CSA are 'vague' on their rulings;)) then why should the PWC family have to suffer....

There are cases where I feel he PWC should be DEFO made to pay any money back from her own pocket (mainly deceiving an NRP that he is the father when she knows fine well he is not and yet accepts the CS) but they just won't do it. Even a nominal sum of £5pw would be a start

Rare_3

Its a pity there isn't a computer big enough so that when a NRP gets paid.. either by giro, wage or benefit I don't even know about, the computer picks this up by their NI number and deducts the amount (depending on how many kids) immediately. No ifs or buts.. this mortgage or that loan for the car.
But saying that, the amount paid would have to be realistic, unlike todays method.

Rare

Sidekick_2

Rare wrote: »

Its a pity there isn't a computer big enough so that when a NRP gets paid.. either by giro, wage or benefit I don't even know about, the computer picks this up by their NI number and deducts the amount (depending on how many kids) immediately. No ifs or buts.. this mortgage or that loan for the car.
But saying that, the amount paid would have to be realistic, unlike todays method.

Rare

New tax codes to cover 15,20 and 25% to be deducted from income like Tax and IN, all problems solved, CSA and forum closed. :beer:

Oh! might put some people out of work.:rolleyes: