Does NRP rent get taken into account for CSA?

mitchaa

lizzielondon wrote: »

i don't know anything about child benefit/CSA

but i'm shocked that a father only has to pay £54 per week from £340 take home pay??? that doesn't seem much

£54pw is around 16% of his salary which I personally think is plenty.

He has 2 other mouths to feed and he has everyday living costs to cover from his remaining £286. If you took much more away from him, it's arguable that he would not have enough left to live on himself.

Where is the sense in that?

mitchaa

kelloggs36 wrote: »

he should also be encouraged to support his children.

He is, £54pw is plenty especially considering child benefits that the mother would get on top of this.

£54pw is a lot more than some NRP's get so the O.P should be grateful that her ex earns a decent income.

Kimitatsu

mitchaa wrote: »

£54pw is around 16% of his salary which I personally think is plenty.

He has 2 other mouths to feed and he has everyday living costs to cover from his remaining £286. If you took much more away from him, it's arguable that he would not have enough left to live on himself.

Where is the sense in that?

Because his duty is to his children - the other children he is supporting are not his (he has only been seperated 38 weeks) and so arguably then they should be claiming CSA for those children which may well at least defray some of the costs that he is paying. Sorry but in this case its not about having enough to live on, its about meeting his legal and moral responsibilities before taking on any further ones - and £850 a month is a large responsibility on the salary that he has.

mitchaa

Kimitatsu wrote: »

Because his duty is to his children - the other children he is supporting are not his (he has only been seperated 38 weeks) and so arguably then they should be claiming CSA for those children which may well at least defray some of the costs that he is paying. Sorry but in this case its not about having enough to live on, its about meeting his legal and moral responsibilities before taking on any further ones - and £850 a month is a large responsibility on the salary that he has.

Hold on a minute here.

My point was made about how I agree that 16% of his income is sufficient. It is as the CSA state it is.

Lizzie in London seemed like she wanted to bankrupt the poor guy. I repsonded that he has expenses to pay too and that I am in agreement that 16% of his salary was indeed fair as per CSA guidelines.

Where are you coming from reference he shouldnt be paying for the other children? I'm astonished to read that from yourself. When you move in with someone you agree to take on all the ''baggage'' that comes with that. Surely you see that?

Perhaps that is the going rate for rent in his area? Unlike an NRP, he would not be given a priority boost up the council housing list.

If the CSA take too much from someone rendering them with no money to live on, then the only option is to give up employment. That of course benefits no1 and the children lose out.

Kimitatsu

Mitchaa - I think we are talking at cross purposes! I agree with you that he SHOULD be paying the rate the CSA has given, and most certainly that he has every right to start up a pension (after all goodness knows what will happen in the next few years!!)

My only point was that he cannot move in with someone else and decline to pay for the children he already has because he has taken on a large rental income. I think you already know that I am an advocate of parents taking on the responsibility for all of their children - biologically theirs or not

I also think that £54 out of his net income a week will make a dint whatever anyone else thinks. However in repsonse to the OP, he may disagree with the amount but I should think he will be able to make a claim for tax credits on his income as well as possibly getting help with his rental costs and council tax - it may well be worth steering him in the direction of www.entitledto.co.uk so that he can check he is getting everything he is entitled to. After all even if you two are in disagreement the children should not suffer (in either family) because of the money side of it.

missmontana

Yes he's taken on 2 other children, and good for him, but they have their own NRP, who should be supporting them.

Surely his new partner should be paying something towards the rent, half?

shiprob195

:eek: Wooooooahhhhhhh :eek:

I think this post has run away with it's self.

The NRP of my kids is living with his partner and her 2 kids.
The NRP of her 2 kids is paying her more than the CSA calculator recommends.

My ExH and his partner are on pretty decent wages and both came away with moderate (cash) settlements upon separation.

They chose to rent a very large detached house to provide for all 4 children (even though they never all seem to be there at the same time).

Now he is complaining he has "no money" to provide for his kids.

He had been given some "advice" from an ill advised friend who is obviously still on the old CSA rules.

Thank you for all you comments.

missmontana

Well, that'll teach him to do his own research!!

Maybe he needs to take a leaf out of the other NRP's book....:)

Kimitatsu

shipr!!!95 wrote: »

:eek: Wooooooahhhhhhh :eek:

I think this post has run away with it's self.

No its fairly normal for this board - we all start off with one thing and end up with another. As long as we are all still friends at the end of the day its all good :rotfl:

The NRP of my kids is living with his partner and her 2 kids.
The NRP of her 2 kids is paying her more than the CSA calculator recommends.

Surely then that defrays some of the day to day costs they have to find, so paying out for his children evens itself out in the end?

My ExH and his partner are on pretty decent wages and both came away with moderate (cash) settlements upon separation.

They chose to rent a very large detached house to provide for all 4 children (even though they never all seem to be there at the same time).

Great to think that they are keeping all four of them in mind when they may all be there - just because it hasnt happened yet doesnt mean to say that it wont in the future. Although having four between myself and DH we found that they all liked bunking down together and giggling into the night rather than having very formal rooming arrangements.

Now he is complaining he has "no money" to provide for his kids.

Unfortunately thats not your problem - the CSA is there to impose and uphold an assessment and he has to comply. Renting a larger house will not be taken into account as that is a seperate issue to the amount that he has to pay for the children.

He had been given some "advice" from an ill advised friend who is obviously still on the old CSA rules.

CS1 rules are completely different and in the majority of cases NRP's on old rules pay more than those on CS2, so from his point of view he is better off on CS2.

Thank you for all you comments.

Sorry if we worried you - we havent even bickered on this thread :T

ballsonyournose

Honest question, but why do most PWC think its solely the NRP's duty to provide financially?
Im of the opinion woman are equal to men, but it seems most PWC harp back to the stone age where woman cook/clean/breastfeed and the men bring home the bacon.

If i dared suggest that to my fianc!e, i'd be castrated on the spot!