Can an NRP receive tax credits?

LovesDennys

bdt1 wrote: »

Ok Denny Kelloggs gave you good advice it is true that if an assessment is incorect then there is no time limit on an appeal, you need to sort this asap, although CSA will feed you the 13 month line

Kelloggs is providing valuable help but its not in a public area of the forum.

I dont think it would be sensible to discuss it openly because it could identify my case to the CSA and I dont want them knowing I intend to bring forward our plans to sell up and move sooner than previously anticiapted.

While I apreciate the CSA cannot use evidence garnered in a public forum and construe it to be fact, I do hold concrete evidence the CSA holds NRP's to the maximum extent the law allows based on circumstantial information, then disregards its laws whenever they become inconvenient.

I cant diclose particulars or doucments because I intend to rely on them if an an inter-CSA agreement between UK and Australia is reached at some point in the future, and it retrospectively requires me to pay the UK money for an assessment that does not comply with UK child support regulations.

Loopy_Girl

bdt1 wrote: »

Sorry Loopy I disagree why would this site be a NRP bashing forum?

Typo bdt...am just going to rectify - silly me!!:o

Loopy_Girl

I would have thought that 'single by choice' should be applauded...at least the PWC is not rushing out and starting a new family and is spending time on nurturing that child.

Few NRP's could learn from that come to think of it.

Shame we can't be told what it means as I am curious as well as PHB

LovesDennys

Loopy_Girl wrote: »

and p.s - I agree with you...the Aus CSA have it sussed and locked down and it's a shame that we can't have the same system.

Its not just the system I was impressed with, it was how friendly the Aussies are. Its a real stark contrast to the British CSA who rarely volunteer useful information to an NRP, they even went to lengths to hide infromation that could otherwise result in a lower assessment, e.g. disclosure of a right for an NRP to claim travel to work.

The Aussie CSA staff were very clear and honest and even provided documentary evidence to support their advice that could result in a NIL assessment. Above all, they were so POLITE. I was blown away with all their help in explaining how UK REMO applications work in the Australian courts and showed how I may be excluded from liability just because I hold British court documents proving I am an excluded parent. This is supported by dozens of British expariates in Australia all confirm what an excellent service they provide. The Aussies could have easily taken the British attitude and refuse to say what the liability I have until after making a commitment to employment and pass complainants from pillar to post.

The Aussie maintenance calculation is much more streamlined and affordable, a flat rate 20%. In the UK CS1 has over a hundred variables and carries a maximum liability of 40% of net income. I loved the Aussies income disclosure policy - in Aussie accent - Decleere it, or dumpet.

I could also rant all day about the level of service I got from the Austrailian Magistrates court service in Perth and how their policy on UK REMO applications work.

Since I first visited Australia, I really have come to love the place, the people are just so friendly. I asked about starting a restaurant business over there and the Authorities were brilliant, even the local Bank manager gave an old-fashioned personal service with lots of excellent advice.

Unlike the British CSA, the Australians are truly committed to getting parents into work, regardless whether or not they live together.

Loopy_Girl

I have to say however that I don't agree with the nil assessment if the PWC is 'single by choice'.

It takes 2 parents to make a child so therefore it should be 2 parents that support it.

Like Kelloggs, and many others, the stupid rule that the Governement drafted in of lone parents being able to keep all CS plus their benefits is just plain ludicrous - where is the incentive for the PWC to get out and work?

Working doesn't just have financial benefits and there must be a good few (hundred?) of cases now where it is not financially viable for the PWC to work - it's bloody stupid.

Children need to see their parent(s) working or else we are just breeding another generation of benefit takers.

LovesDennys

Loopy_Girl wrote: »

I would have thought that 'single by choice' should be applauded...

I asked an Australian CSA worker about this when I was last over there.

They said they disagreed with the British CSA policy on two points. The UK financially rewards parents to become single parents at the expense of the state, and the other parent. It also discourages absent parents from working because the CSA places such a large financial burden on them.

Aussie policy makers learned from this and changed their laws to discourage parents from availing themselves to state help. The Aussie CSA is designed to recover maintenance from parents who leave their children or choose not to maintain them.

LovesDennys

PlayingHardball wrote: »

p.s. I'm not NRP bashing, but now that your original tax credits questions have been answered, I'm just curious about what plans you will put in place.

This discussion is not about satisfying your personal curiousities. You can be sure I always abide with whatever the law says.

PlayingHardball

LovesDennys wrote: »

This discussion is not about satisfying your personal curiousities. You can be sure I always abide with whatever the law says.

My questions are not about 'satisfying my personal curiosities', but as you come onto a public forum to ask advice from others, surely it is a two sided conversation? I wouldn't be overly happy to give advice to someone who was genuinely looking for ways to get out of supporting their children, and to be honest, your position isn't very clear to me at the moment.

You say the Austrailians are very nice people, lovely to talk to and encouraging you to believe you will likely get a nil assessment based on the circumstances. Obviously, you would be only too happy to abide by a nil assessment if that should be the end result for you. I don't know your circumstances, thats fair to say, but at the end of the day, I would personally not be happy with a nil assessment knowing I had kids somewhere out there in the big wide world I wasn't supporting, but had fathered (or mothered, as the case may be) But to be fair, you've never said that was your intention, but you haven't said it isn't.

Would the Austrailians be so nice to you if the children in question of child support were living in their country and the tax payer was supporting them, and not the dad?

As it is, its no sweat off their brow if you live there and don't support the children in the UK, is it? Nothing coming out of the Austrailian coffers to pay support to the children.

However, I totally agree with what you say about the Austrailian CSA looking disdainfully at the 2 points you raised about our UK system. I think we all agree that things have to change so that people such as your ex are never allowed to sit back and let the rest of us pay for their children.

Loopy_Girl

LovesDennys wrote: »

I asked an Australian CSA worker about this when I was last over there.

They said they disagreed with the British CSA policy on two points. The UK financially rewards parents to become single parents at the expense of the state, and the other parent. It also discourages absent parents from working because the CSA places such a large financial burden on them.

Aussie policy makers learned from this and changed their laws to discourage parents from availing themselves to state help. The Aussie CSA is designed to recover maintenance from parents who leave their children or choose not to maintain them.

Well surely that should be 'not working by choice'.

There's a hell of a lot of difference of choosing not to work or choosing not to get into another relationship.

Very misleading in my eyes. You can be 'single by choice' and work a 40 hour week.

(not getting at you - just a personal observation).

I assume that the Auz childcare system must be far superior to ours in order for them to implement these rulings.

LovesDennys

Loopy_Girl wrote: »

I assume that the Auz childcare system must be far superior to ours in order for them to implement these rulings.

Im not sure if Superior is the right word. It adopted the British Child Support Act 1991 as a starting point then each CSA evolved in their own directions with secondary regulation.

I am hearing on the Aussie side there are plans afoot in Canberra to change the Australian CSA further. They say the present system links the amount of child maintanance to the working parents income and is nothing to do with the actual needs of a child.

They want to change the amount of liability so it reflects the actual needs of the child. It might even adopt the rules used by Income Support on setting benefits for children whose parents are on benefits.