CSA are planning to charge us for there services

mummyplus3

I have never recieved payment from my ex my case has been with the CSA for 4 years now, I would happily hand over £100 for them to sort it out!

clearingout

I keep saying it but the proposed charges are nothing compared to what we'd have to pay if we had to use solicitors to drag our exs through court. I'm not sure that it's the general tax payer's responsibility to bear the cost of finding and chasing irresponsible NRPs, particularly now as there is no come back to the Secretary of State. It is, then, a free service and there is nothing else we get entirely for free, is there?!

As for Midnight's suggestion that we should have 'bred' with better people, what a croc of carp! Many of us were in decent, long-lasting marriages when we had children. We could not have predicted the future would end up the way it has. My ex has gone as far as telling mutual friends and accquaintances that he pays me 'thousands a month' in child maintenance so it's quite clear that he knows what he's doing is unacceptable (at least in the circles we used to run in) but that doesn't stop him, does it?! People do change - and I probably wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't seen it, but I do believe that people can change fundamentally given time, influences, pressures etc. Totally and utterly impossible to predict.

fannyanna

Lip_Stick wrote: »

What would happen in a case such as mine, where the NRP wants to go through the CSA because he doesn't trust himself to not pay otherwise? He asked for a DOE himself and said if it wasn't going through the CSA he might spend the money. I don't see why my son should be penalised because of his father's inability to restrain himself from spending his cash.

But surely it's better for your son if you receive child maintenance through the CSA (with a small charge) than receive no child maintenance.

It's one of those things like every CSA system they've had before where you're going to have winners and losers. As an NRPP who's husband has always been compliant I could say that it's unfair that we'll have to pay to use a service that we don't want to use. We'd happily pay direct but I know we'll end up with a CSA case because of the PWC (despite her also having to pay to use the service). It's unfair but that's the way the cookie crumbles.

robbies_gal

midnight_express wrote: »

She doesn't have to use the CSA, it is her choice. Why should her personal finances have anything to do with the rest of us. Why should other people pay to finance the CSA? The CSA costs half a billion pounds a year to run and is a complete waste of public funds. The government is a trillion pounds in debt and can't afford to go on spending money on squabling parents. The sooner we get rid of the nanny state and abolish the CSA the better.

because if you read my post he wasnt paying and when she did ask him every month it wasnt enough os what choice did she have but to force him through the csa-she waited a year to do that aswell

fannyanna

PreludeForTimeFeelers wrote: »

The House of Lords seem to be backing a senior Tory alternative, which is where the person unwilling to come to an agreement is the one who pays - I would guess this will be the NRP in most cases.

This is interesting. I was thinking the same thing too. It should be the person who refuses to play fair that has to pay the price.

So this will be the non compliant NRP who refuses to pay maintenance but also the PWC who feels like they are punishing the compliant NRP by using the CSA.

IF this were to happen the PWC would end up paying in our case. Although I'm sure having to pay to use the service would make her reconsider refusing to use a private arrangement.

PreludeForTimeFeelers

fannyanna wrote: »

This is interesting. I was thinking the same thing too. It should be the person who refuses to play fair that has to pay the price.

So this will be the non compliant NRP who refuses to pay maintenance but also the PWC who feels like they are punishing the compliant NRP by using the CSA.

IF this were to happen the PWC would end up paying in our case. Although I'm sure having to pay to use the service would make her reconsider refusing to use a private arrangement.

With the House of Lords and MPs who knows what will happen though.

clearingout

fannyanna wrote: »

This is interesting. I was thinking the same thing too. It should be the person who refuses to play fair that has to pay the price.

So this will be the non compliant NRP who refuses to pay maintenance but also the PWC who feels like they are punishing the compliant NRP by using the CSA.

IF this were to happen the PWC would end up paying in our case. Although I'm sure having to pay to use the service would make her reconsider refusing to use a private arrangement.

the problem with this is how it is proven that one person is dragging their heels more than the other. Their are obvious cases, like mine, where the ex refuses to pick up the phone to the CSA or answer letters. But there are far more subtle situations where it's more than likely 6 of one and half a dozen of the other. Who is going to arbitrate? It just seems to me that such a system will involve job creation at some level to be able to work out who is/isn't game playing - which adds to the cost - which makes the benefit of charging (ie. no more cost to the average tax payer) pointless. And just adds in another level for 'appeal'.

The only alternative I can see is offering a no-cost mediation service for parents trying to work out child maintenance and if that doesn't work, both sides need to be charged for using the CSA. I can't find a fair, workable solution but would love to hear other ideas!