Maintenance direct?

RedSky

catenorfolk wrote: »

But i do understand that if your ex is happy to pay you regularly, the you dont need the CSA, but what happens if he stops paying suddenly?????

Unless someone has historically been unreliable, what is wrong with assuming a person has good intentions and can be trusted until they prove different. Surely it is better to at least encourage trust and good relations without the CSA while you have the opportunity, but should that fail then bring in the heavies with their threats and enforcement action.

catenorfolk

I quite agree with you, but everyone is reliable until they stop that first payment. Also mumto4 said that he wouldnt pay her what she requested until she got the CSA involved, so surely that is a sign that he may not necessarily always pay. She may be very lucky and he does, but you just never know!!

RedSky

catenorfolk wrote: »

but everyone is reliable until they stop that first payment.

Everyone is capable of greed given temptation but until they commit the act is it fair to judge someone guilty on the basis that they had the opportunity.

PlayingHardball

RedSky - What is the point exactly?

RedSky

Mum2four is content with a private agreement now that the CSA have completed an assessment. An amicable agreement is in most cases better all round and as the NRP has not done anything wrong at this point why should the NRP be punished with payments enforced by the CSA just because Mum2four has the power to choose this.

Loopy_Girl

Why would the NRP be 'punished'? The same amount is due whether it is through the CSA or a private arrangement.

If you read the initial post then you will see that the OP stated the the NRP would not have begun payments without the CSA.

DUTR

Loopy_Girl wrote: »

That's not strictly correct. If the NRP wants to pay direct but the PWC doesn't want them, then payments have to be made via the CSA.

Just like the NRP can decide to pay via the CSA even if the PWC wants direct payment.

It's true in the case of the context that the OP is asking, but yes you are also correct, it is up to both parties not just one. Direct contribution is only if both parties agree to it.

Mum2four_2

He would rather pay less to me than to the csa - so he would continue with payments they were done by standing order - but things come up and sometimes you cant pay.

Loopy_Girl

Mum2four wrote: »

He would rather pay less to me than to the csa - so he would continue with payments they were done by standing order - but things come up and sometimes you cant pay.

So he's paying you less that he should be and has intimated that sometimes he might not be able to pay?

Are you sure a private arrangement is the way ahead? Considering he also refused to pay when you asked and you had to get the CSA involved

DUTR

Mum2four wrote: »

He would rather pay less to me than to the csa - so he would continue with payments they were done by standing order - but things come up and sometimes you cant pay.

That's not your problem really, where there is a will there is a way, one soon gets used to paying the csa, perhaps the nrp should review his budgeting.:o