child maintenance when serving

DX2

missmontana wrote: »

If the CSA has made an error would she not be able to make a complaint and get some sort of compensation?
Its very wrong, because its not like he can be spending a whole lot of money whilst serving out in the sand pit!!!
Just like any other NRP regardless of their job, he has an obligation to provide for his children.
I'm sure there are probably others in the same boat or should I say tank?!

Good luck and let us know if there is any progress.

They haven't made any mistakes though, it's the law. The forces are treated differently to Joe Bloggs who works in Tesco simples.

Kimitatsu

Please can we all keep the thread on topic :money:

OP I was under the impression that actually as he was in the forces then regardless of whether he was in a war zone or not the DEO should be paid. IF that is true and the paymaster is refusing to pay then its up to the CSA to take the MOD to court and force them to impose it.

Also if the arrestment (or lack of) is down to the CSA then if she makes a complaint then if it is upheld then they have to put her back into the position she would have been in had they not made the error (as well as compensation usually too). Its then up to them to claim the arrears of the NRP, and it goes to them rather than the PWC who already has been paid - hope that makes sense.

Its well documented that I have enormous sympathy for those boys and girls serving on the front line - been there and done it - but regardless of where they are they have an obligation to pay for their childrenm and there is not a lot to spend it on out there! For the NRP it would be better for him to pay something so that he does not build up arrears for when he gets back.

DUTR

moggylover wrote: »

You know, you are really making very little sense:D Are you drunk?:D

I do, however, get the impression you are a NRP who feels that the PWC is the one who should support the children (or the state) whilst the NRP just walks away to their new life.

I believe there are other equally important things in life to be given to a child: that does not mean that a NRP should just be allowed to wash their hands of the financial responsibility, whatever their job.

Yes I am an NRP, yes I do pay, no I disagree with the short sighted statements you make as if all NRPs are bad and all PWCs are good,
So with all due respect, I do not accuse you of being a PWC with a size 20 rear end bleating on about how you are not getting as much CS as the next poster, and you can't go to work because of the kids.
I am not accusing you of anything, but when some are doing as much financial hard work as some nrps , then they have a right to throw stones and criticise

moggylover

DUTR wrote: »

Yes I am an NRP, yes I do pay, no I disagree with the short sighted statements you make as if all NRPs are bad and all PWCs are good,
So with all due respect, I do not accuse you of being a PWC with a size 20 rear end bleating on about how you are not getting as much CS as the next poster, and you can't go to work because of the kids.
I am not accusing you of anything, but when some are doing as much financial hard work as some nrps , then they have a right to throw stones and criticise

I never once said that all NRP's are bad, or that all PWC's are good! What I said was that it does not seem right that any NRP should get away with not paying towards their childrens upkeep and that a job in the services should be no different to any other in that respect.;)

It is not a situation I am in at all and only commented that it seemed very wrong that the paymaster or MOD can interfere in any way with a NRP paying towards their children. You are the one twisting that into something entirely different.;)

Personally I do not care how hard the NRP is working: it is still their responsibility to contribute financially to their child/children despite the breakdown of their relationship, and the size of the mothers backside has nothing whatsoever to do with the NRP's relationship to their offspring:D I certainly wasn't bleating about CS amounts and never have.

If that makes me "the miserable one" for questioning whether the MOD are acting honourably then I really don't care: they are not acting honourably:D

DUTR

moggylover wrote: »

I never once said that all NRP's are bad, or that all PWC's are good! What I said was that it does not seem right that any NRP should get away with not paying towards their childrens upkeep and that a job in the services should be no different to any other in that respect.;)

It is not a situation I am in at all and only commented that it seemed very wrong that the paymaster or MOD can interfere in any way with a NRP paying towards their children. You are the one twisting that into something entirely different.;)

Personally I do not care how hard the NRP is working: it is still their responsibility to contribute financially to their child/children despite the breakdown of their relationship, and the size of the mothers backside has nothing whatsoever to do with the NRP's relationship to their offspring:D I certainly wasn't bleating about CS amounts and never have.

If that makes me "the miserable one" for questioning whether the MOD are acting honourably then I really don't care: they are not acting honourably:D

It would seem wrong if it were actually true, personally, I'm glad if that is the situation, only becasue from reading posts here, the csa agents often come across as a law onto themself, and this time, they have to go away with their tails between their legs

If children were dropping down at the roadside through lack of CS payments, then I could agree with you wholeheartedly :beer:

missmontana

ceg77 wrote: »

H
The CSA made a blip and cancelled the arrestment, now my friend is receiving no payments, her ex husband is refusing to contribute. The CSA advised the cannot arrest the wages of a serving soldier in a war zone and nothing can be done until he returns.

Can someone please advise if this can be challenged somehow, as it seems very unfair that a family are put at financial straints because of armed forces legislation and an error of CSA.

thanks

It says the CSA made a blip. So he wasn't being treated any differently, until now.

DX2

missmontana wrote: »

It says the CSA made a blip. So he wasn't being treated any differently, until now.

Assuming he wasn't in a war zone before the csa can place a DER on him and continue with this even when he is in a war zone however as there has been a blip and he is now in a war zone they can't do anything about this blip until he stop serving in the war zone. Fickle lot the MOD/CSA.

moggylover

DUTR wrote: »

It would seem wrong if it were actually true, personally, I'm glad if that is the situation, only becasue from reading posts here, the csa agents often come across as a law onto themself, and this time, they have to go away with their tails between their legs

If children were dropping down at the roadside through lack of CS payments, then I could agree with you wholeheartedly :beer:

Well, of course, there are plenty of non-resident parents quite happy to allow the tax-payer to take responsibility for the children they have produced so they will not be "dropping at the roadside";)

I agree that the CSA do appear to be able to be a law unto themselves in many cases but since they are, in fact, only really trying to ensure that NRP's do what any decent parent would do I find it hard to understand your stance.

However, I am aware that this is not DT and that this is not the right board for this discussion. I will not be returning to the subject and apologise to the OP, and the other board members for any disruption that I may have caused.

DUTR

moggylover wrote: »

Well, of course, there are plenty of non-resident parents quite happy to allow the tax-payer to take responsibility for the children they have produced so they will not be "dropping at the roadside";)

I agree that the CSA do appear to be able to be a law unto themselves in many cases but since they are, in fact, only really trying to ensure that NRP's do what any decent parent would do I find it hard to understand your stance.

However, I am aware that this is not DT and that this is not the right board for this discussion. I will not be returning to the subject and apologise to the OP, and the other board members for any disruption that I may have caused.

Just as there are equally an amount of pwcs that are happy to let the state take the bill for the children they have produced.
The csa like it or not was created to lessen the load on the DSS funds
So equally the PWCs are no better than NRPS so there is my stance on that, in the description above I am not necessarily reffering to you , I or any other particular eader here right now, but it is a narrow minded vision to spout that it is always and forwever the NRPS fault, as many have said , it takes two to tango.

I too am sorry for any disruption, but nowhere on the forum does it say this is just for PWCs and NRPs should just sit asnd read narrow minded viewpoints without question :j

13Kent

I was under the impression that there was nowhere to hide from the CSA if you are in the forces - as people in the forces in effect work for a government agency if they refuse to pay it is easy for the CSA just to take the money anyway whether the NRP can afford it or not - I heard of a Corporal who's money was increased by a huge amount in order to pay of his arrears within the 2 year time limit. The CSA just arranged to take it out of his wages, and he was left with practially nothing to live on and there was nothing he could do about it.