CSA Help

silvercar

Honest_broker07 wrote: »

kelloggs,
but what I disagree with is this NRP earns £2000 PCM and pays £500 for 3 kids,
but if NRP has 3 kids with new partner £500 is discounted and he pays 25% of £1500 ir £375

so why are the 3 that live with him only need £125 a month to live on when the other 3 need 3 times as much.

the figures / system are completely unfair to the NRP's second family, and remember folks it isn't always the fault of the NRP that they don't have the kids

Calculation is out.

NRP keeps 2000-500=1500 in first instance and then gets to keep 2000-375=1625 with the new 3. It may also be that the NRPP's income also changes, as will benefits.

More kids on the scene, means less money to go round, means cutbacks for everyone involved, irrespective of who made a decision to have more kids.

13Kent

If a person can't afford the children they already have, then it's definately not a good idea to have more!

Things are rarely so black and white!

That is easy to say Debicj if you are the PWC and you still have your family with you.
What if you are a NRP through no fault of your own (your ex having an affair) and you lose your family? Are you not entitled to rebuild your life and have a family with someone else?

The first 2 do need to be paid for, i've never understood that nil assessment.

I believe that both parents should be financially responsible for the children.

So do I but what about our PWC who has a nil assessment although both her and her partner work, and as a NRPP I am financially responsible for her children as my wages are taken into account in the assessment.

Unfortunately the CSA is unfair to all!!

kelloggs36

but your money is NOT used in the assessment - the amount the NRP should pay is calculated solely on the NRP wages, not yours in any way.

Debicj

Even though a PWC may have a nil assessment, it doesn't mean they are not paying for the upkeep of the children. It costs a lot to keep a roof over their heads and to clothe and feed them. If a PWC didn't pay for these things and the NRP also didn't contribute, the children would be in a sorry state wouldn't they?

It's easy to claim that the PWC would have the expense of housing and bills etc. anyway, but that's not true. The PWC has to pay for larger accommodation for a family than if they live alone and obviously bills are higher if there are more people using electric etc. especially as the kids get older. There is also the cost of childcare etc. that can prevent some PWC from working and being able to earn enough to make a difference to the CSA assessment.

That's why I think both parents should share the cost. After all, it takes two to make a child so it should take two to share the cost and responsibility of the child's upbringing.

I do feel sorry for NRPs who don't have their kids living with them through no fault of their own, but it's not the children's fault. It still costs the same for them to live, so both parents should still be responsible for them.

13Kent

Please don't think I was 'having a go' at the PWC - I my post was mainly a comment on the unfairness of the system.

I have a lot of sympathy for any PWC who is not in that position by choice as I have for the NRP in the same position. Of course both parents should be equally responsible for their children - both financially and otherwise. Unfortunately in real life that doesn't seem to happen often, and the CSA system doesn't make it easy for anyone - whether they be the PWC, NRP and of course the most important element in this the child.

Debicj

We agree on something then. The CSA certainly doesn't make it fair or easy for anyone involved!

speedster

Debicj wrote: »

Even though a PWC may have a nil assessment, it doesn't mean they are not paying for the upkeep of the children. It costs a lot to keep a roof over their heads and to clothe and feed them. If a PWC didn't pay for these things and the NRP also didn't contribute, the children would be in a sorry state wouldn't they?

It's easy to claim that the PWC would have the expense of housing and bills etc. anyway, but that's not true. The PWC has to pay for larger accommodation for a family than if they live alone and obviously bills are higher if there are more people using electric etc. especially as the kids get older. There is also the cost of childcare etc. that can prevent some PWC from working and being able to earn enough to make a difference to the CSA assessment.

That's why I think both parents should share the cost. After all, it takes two to make a child so it should take two to share the cost and responsibility of the child's upbringing.

I do feel sorry for NRPs who don't have their kids living with them through no fault of their own, but it's not the children's fault. It still costs the same for them to live, so both parents should still be responsible for them.

as per usual, a pwc has forgot to mention most of the important factors out. no real surprise there then.

firstly, as pwc you are entitled to affordable housing. nrp has no rights and has to go for expensive private rent or mortgage.

secondly, pwc gets child benefit.

thirdly, pwc will probably be entitled to tax credits. nrp will not, even if on 50/50 shared care.

fourthly, pwc holds all the control over contact. nrp either gets driven away or has to pay and fight through the courts for the "privilidge" of being "allowed" to see his children.

fifhly, nrp gets to hand over 15/20 or 25% of his wages to pwc whether she needs all that or not.

poor hard done by pwc.

Loopy_Girl

speedster wrote: »

fourthly, pwc holds all the control over contact.

Really?

Muppet

Kimitatsu

speedster wrote: »

as per usual, a pwc has forgot to mention most of the important factors out. no real surprise there then.

firstly, as pwc you are entitled to affordable housing. nrp has no rights and has to go for expensive private rent or mortgage.

Entitled to affordable housing? Not when I split up from husband no 1! We had not lived in the district 3 years at that point so the council had no obligation to house me at all - they had an obligation to house the children, and would have taken them into care to do so if they needed to house them. So not always true.

secondly, pwc gets child benefit.

True, £20 a week doesn't go far though for all of the housing costs.

thirdly, pwc will probably be entitled to tax credits. nrp will not, even if on 50/50 shared care.

PWC is not always in receipt of tax credits to begin with - if NRP has CM and tax credits in their name it can take months to sort out.

fourthly, pwc holds all the control over contact. nrp either gets driven away or has to pay and fight through the courts for the "privilidge" of being "allowed" to see his children.

NRP can always go through CAFCASS if need be. Please lets not have another PWC contact bashing thread.

fifhly, nrp gets to hand over 15/20 or 25% of his wages to pwc whether she needs all that or not.

Money is for the upkeep of the child not the upkeep of the parent, and being honest for most PWC's 15% of a wage is nowhere near the 50% they would have otherwise been getting had the relationship survived

poor hard done by pwc.

Just a few comments to point out that nothing is black and white, every case should be taken on its merits, and just because you have had a bad experience speedster then there are just as many PWC's out there who can tell their own tales of woe.

Debicj

speedster wrote: »

as per usual, a pwc has forgot to mention most of the important factors out. no real surprise there then.

firstly, as pwc you are entitled to affordable housing. nrp has no rights and has to go for expensive private rent or mortgage.

Where do we get this affordable housing? The council waiting list for this area is around 4 years and my mortgage is much less than renting would cost anyway, but still fairly expensive compared to no mortgage. I wouldn't need a mortgage for a one bedroomed home if I didn't have the kids living with me.



secondly, pwc gets child benefit.

Whoopeee! £33 a week for 2 children. Just about covers their school dinners and bus fares


thirdly, pwc will probably be entitled to tax credits. nrp will not, even if on 50/50 shared care.

Nope, my new husband earns too much.



fourthly, pwc holds all the control over contact. nrp either gets driven away or has to pay and fight through the courts for the "privilidge" of being "allowed" to see his children.

I wish! I have tried and tried to get the NRP to see more of our children but not much success there. I have very little control over contact. He chooses when he wishes to see them and also when to change arrangements.



fifhly, nrp gets to hand over 15/20 or 25% of his wages to pwc whether she needs all that or not.

Well yes, actually I do need it if I am to provide for my children properly as I don't earn enough to pay for everything for them. Luckily, my new husband is generous which helps. But I don't see why he should foot the bill for two children that aren't his. He already does more than his fair share by looking after them while I work etc. The 20% that I receive form their father totals £25 per week per child. That doesn't go far.



poor hard done by pwc.

I think a lot of NRP would be surprised at the true cost of bringing up children. It actually does cost more than the Child benefit. I bet it also costs more than 25% of their wage. Where else can you get full time childcare and all inclusive board and lodging for that price?


I hope this shows another side to these statements. It's not always that straightforward and simple.