can csa reduce payments to cover travel expenses

Loopy_Girl

You're correct. I was lucky I was able to get IS for 4 years but am sure the tax I paid previous to having my child and the tax I will pay for the next 30 years will more than cover what I claimed during those years.

I do pay for my 'produce'. Classy:eek:

SingleSue

On the occasions I managed to persuade ex hubby to have the children, we have split the travel costs....he would travel down from where he was (he was the one who moved, I am still in our old house), I would travel up from where I am and we would meet in the middle (literally, the middle of the country!).

It seemed the fairest way to do it.

Edit - we each paid our own travel costs, not small bearing in mind he moved 400 miles away!

Loopy_Girl

If the PWC decides to move here there and everywhere then and the NRP wants to maintain contact then I don't think the NRP should pay for all the travel costs.

For all the CSA give anyway...it's hardly a huge amount. I have seen NRP's on here that cost hundreds of £'s to maintain contact and they get a piddling £10 or whatever to help with costs.

I suppose it's how a PWC looks at it - what's more important, a small reduction for contact or no contact and full CS?

Like you Sue, if I had the chance I would do a half way thing. Or offer to pay towards petrol.

Loopy_Girl

SingleSue wrote: »

Edit - we each paid our own travel costs, not small bearing in mind he moved 400 miles away!

Then you were very fair as it was his choosing. But then some PWC would do anything for contact to be maintained.

Well done you

SingleSue

Goodness yes....unfortunately, he won't go for it now and hasn't had them overnight for 2 years (and he only had them that last time because he wanted them there for his wedding).

In fact, if you add up the hours he has had them in the last two years, it wouldn't even come to half a day! He is missing out on so much with his boys..they grow up so fast.

Loopy_Girl

SingleSue wrote: »

He is missing out on so much with his boys..they grow up so fast.

And not only that, they are missing out on having their father in their life. It's a horrible situation to be in and more so as your lads are special ones:D but there's nothing that a PWC can do to want a NRP to be in their childrens lives....sadly.

BLT_2

Nicifer_noonoo wrote: »

I don't know the answer, but why should the child lose out on maintenence money for THE CHILD because of where the NR Parent lives? If only resident parents got tax breaks for travelling costs to and from school, nursery etc...

And in cases where the parent with the child moves away from the NR resident, he has to pay maintenance for his children (rightly so) but also find money to pay for visits to see his children.

The whole maintenance system is flawed.

Example. NR parent pays 300 pounds per month for child, equating to circa 75 pounds per week, this food is for upkeep of child. He has child for 2 weeks during summer holidays. on a pro rata basis this should mean he pays 150 pounds that week, with the other money being used to support the visiting child.

Does he hell, he pays the resident parent to support the child whilst he has him or her at his residence. There should be some methodology for claiming these sort of costs back

alwayspuzzled

I thought that that was what the 1/7 reduction per average number of overnight stays was for? So that the nrp isn't paying for when the QC is with them? I do realize that some pwc (the ones speedy calls wimmin:rotfl:) lie to the csa regarding overnight stays (no worries on that one with our pwc she just refused any contact:mad:) but surely for the majority of the population lying to an official organization is simply not an option.

DaiJoA

BLT wrote: »

And in cases where the parent with the child moves away from the NR resident, he has to pay maintenance for his children (rightly so) but also find money to pay for visits to see his children.

The whole maintenance system is flawed.

Example. NR parent pays 300 pounds per month for child, equating to circa 75 pounds per week, this food is for upkeep of child. He has child for 2 weeks during summer holidays. on a pro rata basis this should mean he pays 150 pounds that week, with the other money being used to support the visiting child.

Does he hell, he pays the resident parent to support the child whilst he has him or her at his residence. There should be some methodology for claiming these sort of costs back

This is what makes my blood boil! :mad: When the contact arrangement between my OH and his ex was fully up-and-running (see my thread as to why it stopped!) it actually worked out that between us having my OH's little boy, and the little boy being looked after by both his grandmothers and being at pre-school, the PWC was getting the usual £30 a week for the week that we had little boy at the weekend - but only looking after him herself four nights of that week, not at all during the day, and only one morning that he wasn't at pre-school for! And then, when it came to the Wednesday, getting another £30 when she'd barely seen the boy to have any chance of spending the previous lot! To my mind it should be set at a certain amount a week, say £30, then reduced down to say £25 for the week where the child is away for the weekend, as not only is that extra £5 not being spent on heating the house for the child, or food for the child, the NRP is having to spend at least a further £10 on food, heating and some form of entertainment for the child on the contact weekend. It is really unfair IMO.

BLT_2

DaiJoA wrote: »

This is what makes my blood boil! :mad: When the contact arrangement between my OH and his ex was fully up-and-running (see my thread as to why it stopped!) it actually worked out that between us having my OH's little boy, and the little boy being looked after by both his grandmothers and being at pre-school, the PWC was getting the usual £30 a week for the week that we had little boy at the weekend - but only looking after him herself four nights of that week, not at all during the day, and only one morning that he wasn't at pre-school for! And then, when it came to the Wednesday, getting another £30 when she'd barely seen the boy to have any chance of spending the previous lot! To my mind it should be set at a certain amount a week, say £30, then reduced down to say £25 for the week where the child is away for the weekend, as not only is that extra £5 not being spent on heating the house for the child, or food for the child, the NRP is having to spend at least a further £10 on food, heating and some form of entertainment for the child on the contact weekend. It is really unfair IMO.

The basic premise as I understand it is that the rate is set at 15% for the first child, with a 1/7 reduction for each day the NRP looks after his or her children. However this does not take into account periods where the NRP may have his child for 2 weeks.

Clearly on 30 pounds a week this does not make much of an impact - however where the figure runs into hundreds of pounds the impact is dramatic. And before anyone comments on the fact that an individual paying hundreds of pounds per month can afford it please remember that the CSA is set at a percentage of your net wage, not your net wage after rent, utilities etc.

Interestingly enough has anyone ever heard of a RP giving up 50 percent of their tax credits for the 2 weeks they dont look after the children :rotfl: