CSA , how does it work ?

DGJsaver

Hi All
Child is 14 and since birth the NRP parent - Contributes fInancially through clothes , shoes etc and the PWC - Works full time and gets WTC and CB

How , and why and would the CSA get involved in this case ?

Cheers

Becciboobah

The CSA wouldn't need to if an arrangement had been made between the parents that both were happy with, but either the PWC isn't happy with this and wants the money rather than the 'goods' so to speak or the NRP thinks he's paying out more than the CSA would have made him pay or the CSA are sticking their nose in where it's not wanted as they're missing out on some revenue.

We had a problem with the PWC deciding she'd rather the cash than clothes, shoes, food for the children. CSA got involved and basically made NRP pay them regardless. We are now doublely out of pocket as we still have to buy the above as she won't. But that's our personal problems (and certainly not the behaviour of most of the PWC's I know I hasten to add).

In short if both parties are happy with the arrangement as it is, there is no need for CSA to get involved.

DGJsaver

Hiya

Thanks for taking the time to answer

So , there is no active investigation arm of the CSA digging to try and find parents who dont live together , and to then issue demands for money ?

What would happen if the PWC was unemployed , would the CSA get involved then to try and recoup benefit costs ?

Becciboobah

Income Support is a bit different. If PWC was unemployed, it used to work that you had to then claim through CSA as you could only keep the first £20 of it before it affected your benefit (if you didn't go through CSA they wouldn't know how much you were receiving, it could have been £300 a week) but even that's changed now as you can keep all of it without affecting your benefits but DWP still need to be told of maintainence payments hence CSA usually collect this and share the info with them. I went onto IS for about 6 weeks inbetween jobs and the DWP told me I HAD to go through CSA or they'd decrease my payments by a third. This was a few years ago now though.

DGJsaver

Oh and the other thing , if the PWC decided all of a sudden to go to the CSA for reasons of her own , wold there be 14 years of arrears even though a private arrangement was in palce for that period of time ?

Becciboobah

Now that is something I don't know but you'd have to be pretty vindictive to want 14 years arrears when the NRP has been supporting their children. The common sense arguement would say no but this is the CSA and they are a law unto themselves sometimes. So I don't know but some other kind poster may know the answer

shell_542

A CSA case only starts from the first time they try and contact the non resident parent. So in the case of the OP there would be no backpay for 14 years as the case wouldn't open until after the PWC contacted them and they in turn contacted the NRP.

The CSA no longer have to be involved if the PWC is unemployed and on Income Support. The rules changed in Apr/May of this year.

Now, the only way the CSA would be involved is if the PWC contacted them or if an NRP contacted them and the PWC agreed to go through them.

DGJsaver

Thanks for all your help all

febe

one point , if the NRP contacts to ask for an assesment under the current rules it does not matter if the PWC agrees, CSA will make a calculation and then up to PWc if they want money and if they do accounts will be set up, if not no accounts set up but assesment still in place.

hth

Becciboobah

shell_542 wrote: »

A CSA case only starts from the first time they try and contact the non resident parent. So in the case of the OP there would be no backpay for 14 years as the case wouldn't open until after the PWC contacted them and they in turn contacted the NRP.

The CSA no longer have to be involved if the PWC is unemployed and on Income Support. The rules changed in Apr/May of this year.

Now, the only way the CSA would be involved is if the PWC contacted them or if an NRP contacted them and the PWC agreed to go through them.

I saw that, I stand corrected