How do I get the CSA to look into Ex's CTC and WTC?

gratefulforhelp_2

Its a valid, point, shell but really hard when people are on low incomes.

speedster

another thing that hasn't helped where the unscupulous PWC are involved is the governments blindingly stooooopid decision to allow the benefit scroungers to keep all the CM.

now, baring in mind the csa was set up originally to recoup the ever growing benefit bill that waynetta slob, vicki pollard and the rest of the scummy mummy's ran up, then it's ludicrous that they now get to keep the lot. makes a total mockery of the system. the get out is that they are supposed to "declare" the CM they recieve. yeah riiiiiiiiight.

and furthermore, it has now created a new breed of career pwc's who are firing out kids to multiple nrps and milking each for 15%.

i heard of one tart who fired out 3 kids in quick sucession to 3 blokes, milks them of a bloody fortune and STILL gets IS, HB,CS, the whole lot. no surprise then, that she's openly admitted she never intends to work. EVER..

i'm the last one to tar all PWC with the same brush, but there's a whole nation of lazy, benefit scrounging skanks who are a drain on all of us. :mad:

ACon

I do agree with the last post, although I don't believe having three kids with different men for the CM was entirely planned, as it was only April it changed to allowing PWC to keep the full amount.
However I 100% agree that allowing all maintenance to be kept by PWC on IS is a bad idea, although Im betting on that changing with the new government plans to recoup money.

I know I *shouldn't* rely on maintenance for day to day expenses, but when theres not much coming in, and plenty going out, you do find yourself expecting that payment to come in and sort out one bill that week, or buy the kids new shoes, pay for the latest after school club they join... when its been coming in regulary for a few months, then suddenly stops, you realise how much you were depending on it!

shell_542

gratefulforhelp wrote: »

Its a valid, point, shell but really hard when people are on low incomes.

The thing is though, if they took child support into account for benefits, then you would lose some benefits while child support is being paid regularly and if for whatever reason the child benefit dropped/stopped ... you would then be topped up with the benefits.

Because people are now receiving all their maintenance and all benefits available, they find if the maintenance stops for any reason, they are screwed! Whereas if were still in a couple and the partner lost their job or their hours were decreased, you could then apply for help from the government to tide you over until you get back on your feet, there is no help available. So someone is living to their means with the money coming in and if it stops or lowers, they have to adjust with no way of increasing the income other than spending less or earning more.

I know it must be hard, but I would do all I could not to rely on child maintenance for bills and the like.

Meg67

shell_542 wrote: »

It's why (although hard) it's really not ideal to use child maintenance for essentials. An NRP could lose their job any time and would stop paying maintenance, through no fault of their own. If you had still been together, it could have still happened. Yes, it's galling when they're doing it on purpose, but sometimes it's for genuine reasons and why it's better to not include maintenance into your bills and class it as an extra.

I totally agree it's much better NOT to include maintenance payments when budgeting for bills etc.... I always used my CM to fund my daughter hobbies and to give her the little extras etc..... The trouble is, when the payments stopped (I've had nothing for nearly 3 yrs) I didn't have the heart to make her give up the things that she loves. I know these are not necessaties but they too have to be factored in to a household budget minus the CM payments.

Kind regards

Meg x x x

gratefulforhelp_2

shell_542 wrote: »

The thing is though, if they took child support into account for benefits, then you would lose some benefits while child support is being paid regularly and if for whatever reason the child benefit dropped/stopped ... you would then be topped up with the benefits.

Because people are now receiving all their maintenance and all benefits available, they find if the maintenance stops for any reason, they are screwed! Whereas if were still in a couple and the partner lost their job or their hours were decreased, you could then apply for help from the government to tide you over until you get back on your feet, there is no help available. So someone is living to their means with the money coming in and if it stops or lowers, they have to adjust with no way of increasing the income other than spending less or earning more.

I know it must be hard, but I would do all I could not to rely on child maintenance for bills and the like.

And me, but then I have the luxury (?!) of a full time job.

FBaby

ACon wrote: »

Income Support and JSA used to only let you claim £10 a wk in CM, I think, but now they allow you to claim it all. I dont think its fair as you could be getting hundreds a week in CM and still claim IS/JSA. But that was only £10 plus, not a reduction of benefits.
For example, if a mother was working part time, and claiming CTC and WTC to see her through, and was meant to be getting £50 a wk from the NRP, and he stopped paying, as they can easily do, or left his job, etc, and her CTC was regulary deducted by an amount similar to her CM, she would suddenly be a whole lot worse off.
This month Ive struggled to pay my rent due to his non payments, and had to cut down elsewhere, add to this my car needed tax, so I now have no car as I couldnt afford to tax it. Now I live in the sticks, and havent left the house in a good couple of weeks, as you cannot walk anywhere, its all too far, luckily my kids get a school bus. So no, I dont think the PWC should have their TC reduced due to CM, especially if shes a working mum. ( I can see the point when on full benefits, but like the old system, not a cut of benefits)

Ha ha, I meant the other way around, ie. maintenance goes down, pwc receives more TC! At the same time, if a pwc gets £500 say a month, that should be recognise in total amount of tc she receives.

FBaby

shell_542 wrote: »

It's why (although hard) it's really not ideal to use child maintenance for essentials. An NRP could lose their job any time and would stop paying maintenance, through no fault of their own. If you had still been together, it could have still happened. Yes, it's galling when they're doing it on purpose, but sometimes it's for genuine reasons and why it's better to not include maintenance into your bills and class it as an extra.

But that defeats the whole reason for CM in the first place. It IS supposed to be to contribute for a child upbringing essentials. If you start organising your budget without it, and use it only for extras -activities, more expensive clothes, holidays etc...- then the pwc get slated by the nrp for spending the money on luxury items and it's not fair when they are struggling... you can't win.

speedster

ACon wrote: »

I do agree with the last post, although I don't believe having three kids with different men for the CM was entirely planned, as it was only April it changed to allowing PWC to keep the full amount.
However I 100% agree that allowing all maintenance to be kept by PWC on IS is a bad idea, although Im betting on that changing with the new government plans to recoup money.

I know I *shouldn't* rely on maintenance for day to day expenses, but when theres not much coming in, and plenty going out, you do find yourself expecting that payment to come in and sort out one bill that week, or buy the kids new shoes, pay for the latest after school club they join... when its been coming in regulary for a few months, then suddenly stops, you realise how much you were depending on it!

now she just does it legally.

before the change, she insisted on cash payments from the fathers otherwise she would cut their contact off.

greed and some pwc's unfortunately go hand in hand. along with a total disregard for their childrens feelings unfortunately.

skanks like that need their children removed from them and booked in for compulsory sterilisation. :mad:

shell_542

FBaby wrote: »

But that defeats the whole reason for CM in the first place. It IS supposed to be to contribute for a child upbringing essentials. If you start organising your budget without it, and use it only for extras -activities, more expensive clothes, holidays etc...- then the pwc get slated by the nrp for spending the money on luxury items and it's not fair when they are struggling... you can't win.

Of course it is meant for day to day things, but I would have thought it's common sense, when you know you have an NRP who is flaky and you don't know whether the money will be regular, to not rely on it for example to pay for essential bills.

If I were in receipt of child support, I would try and put it in an account ready for when I need money for things like uniform, new shoes, winter clothes, summer clothes, school trips etc.

That way, when those costs do crop up, you'll be able to use the child maintenance money to cover some/all and not have to dip into your money for bills etc.