CSA are planning to charge us for there services

mrsspendalot

I found a lot of it frustrating as it talks a lot about supporting parents who are thinking about separating, mediation, etc. That's not relevant to people who are already separated and even divorced, and may have been for several years. Enjoy the read!

DX2

mrsspendalot wrote: »

I found a lot of it frustrating as it talks a lot about supporting parents who are thinking about separating, mediation, etc. That's not relevant to people who are already separated and even divorced, and may have been for several years. Enjoy the read!

By the time it's up and running most of us will hopefully be out of the mess.

mrsspendalot

DX2 wrote: »

By the time it's up and running most of us will hopefully be out of the mess.

Hopefully!

I won't be though .... my stepdaughter is 5 and my youngest is nearly 5 .... we have a few years of this mess left yet :wall:

I thought the new gross income scheme would still be coming in and then things would just settle .... seems not! I'll be very interested in reading other responses to the consultation anyway .... and alternative suggestions that come out of it. Although at the end of the day, my guess is they will ignore the lot, do what they want anyway and then it will all still go wrong and a lot of us will be complaining still in 10 years time about being let down by the system!!!

DUTR

DX2 wrote: »

By the time it's up and running most of us will hopefully be out of the mess.

I hope so too, 3-6yrs to go :j

DUTR

AnxiousMum wrote: »

Because if enforcement has to take place, it's simply because the NRP has refused to pay what is supposed to be. So I can see them enforcing fees for collection of arrears.

As it is a child's right to receive child support however, I do think that an application fee is unacceptable.

I understand your point, enforcement does not take place in all cases, some parents can't agree a schedule, I much rather pay via the csa than to the PWC directly
And some PWCs may not want to furnish bank account details to the NRP .

clearingout

Have skim read it. Not impressed. It assumes:
a) when relationships breakdown, everyone is in agreement and 'happy' about things, singing from the same hymn sheet. Not in my experience.
b) that both parents are always able to act in a rational, sensible manner which is in the best interests of the children. Few relationships breakdown because people are acting sensibly and rationally.
c) that everyone wants it to be over and done with as quickly and painlessly as possible. Not in my experience. Many seem to want to drag out divorce procedures in the most expensive and painful way possible for all parties, including any new partner(s).
d) that everyone has filed their tax returns on time without trying to diddle anyone. Hmmmm....
e) that some how Government departments on different computer systems with no (obvious) current ability to cross-reference and work together will somehow, like a wonderful miracle, suddenly start cross-referencing and working together.
f) that all NRPs want to pay and all PWC are capable of doing what is right by their children, thus eliminating 'pay per view'.
g) that neither 'side' has a new partner who accidentally, or otherwise, gets invovled in fuelling problems between exs (not having a go at anyone, it's just how it seems to be).

I could go on. It ignores the massive, massive issue of what to do about those who are entirely non-compliant. I didn't see anywhere any reference to them wanting to somehow free up their staff to deal with the real problems.....which I assume is one of their motives behind this?

If anyone is responding and would like to share, I would be interested to see what you are saying, as I'm sure others would to help inform their own responses. I intend personally to focus my response on 'All well and good. But what are you going to do about the ones who won't co-operate' and then tell my story in relation to their questions which I think I can manage quite nicely.

And you know, what about asking the question, did the person who wrote this personally ever experience long-term relationship/marital breakdown? 'cos I bet he/she is 22, just out of university and carving a political career for themselves....

mrsspendalot

Agree completely clearingout. I'm just starting to draft my response now and would gladly 'swap notes' with you!

I'm also yet to see how they plan on dealing with situations where by an NRP may have more than one PWC to pay maintenance to. Presently (as I understand it) there is no allowance for this unless both cases are assessed with CSA, i.e. if you pay one privately the CSA do not take it into account and don't apply any reductions to the case they are involved in. So you could have one PWC happy to cooperate privately, and one who isn't and wants a statutory case. What happens then? Should the cooperative PWC have to incur charges in this case? Is that fair? Or will they start and make allowance for private arrangements in statutory cases?

clearingout

that's a good point. They have no flippin' idea, do they?! I guess all we can do is respond - no point in complaining about the outcome if we don't try and influence. Swapping notes a good idea - happy to post here or PM me if you'd rather things were privatge.

DX2

clearingout wrote: »

And you know, what about asking the question, did the person who wrote this personally ever experience long-term relationship/marital breakdown? 'cos I bet he/she is 22, just out of university and carving a political career for themselves....

:rotfl::T:rotfl::T
Some good points raised so far, if I am not busy later on this afternoon I will comb through the document aswell.

AnxiousMum

DUTR wrote: »

I understand your point, enforcement does not take place in all cases, some parents can't agree a schedule, I much rather pay via the csa than to the PWC directly
And some PWCs may not want to furnish bank account details to the NRP .

Sorry DUTR - bad wording on my part! I consider the situation where you have a CSA case, and pay it on a regular basis as 'monitoring', which shouldn't incur a charge.

However, when they have to put enforcement into place - them chasing the NRP for payment, having to pay staff who are spending their time tracking someone down whose done a runner, getting DEO's, putting charges on property etc., THAT is only having to be done because the NRP is refusing to pay - and should definitely incur a penalty.

My Ex had to pay penalties for two late payments in a one year period - at the end of his child support obligation, he will owe FMEP in Canada $400 (they charge either one months maintenance or $400 whichever is less for two late payments in a 12 month period). As his late payments incur administrative costs, it's only fair that he should be the one dinged for them.