We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
CSA are planning to charge us for there services
Options
Comments
-
My thoughts on charging would be:
Where parents cannot work together and an application needs to be made, charge both parents 50/50 for the application fee - this means 'tBOTH parents feel the financial pinch immediately of not being able to work it out alone. Of course, anyone who isn't willing to even try and work it out privately could be charged the full fee.
Where a PWC chooses to have maintenance collected from the NRP, apply a % charge for the service but not to the NRP if they were willing to pay direct (avoids financial penalty for something out of their control)
Where an NRP chooses to have maintenance collected from the NRP, apply a % collection charge to the NRP but not to the PWC if they were wanting maintenance paid direct (avoids financial penalty for something out of their control)
Where an NRP is non-compliant with maintenance direct, or any other part of the case, impose charges which will deter their non-compliance but do not penalise the PWC by charging them for receiving maintenance via the collection service (not within their control)
If an application is made for the calculation service only (which they are saying perhaps £25 charge), which then results in a full escalation to the statutory service, charge a reduced application fee as at least it demonstrates that the parents were trying to work it out - even if that reduced fee is £75 so the overall application fee paid is still £100 - again, split 50/50 to make it fairer and make both parties share the cost.
I am just very against any parent, be they the PWC or the NRP, who is willing to sit down like an adult with the other person and work things out being financially penalised for the childish or irresponsible behaviour of the other parent. I think charging for choice is one thing, and charging for non-compliance is an obvious thing to do - but to punish parents who have tried their hardest but are left with absolutely no choice is just wrong.
Tax payers do deserve better value for money, and I can completely understand why charging for this type of service is a quick and easy way to make some money. I would rather they charged for something like this than made further cuts in other areas which affect my family. I just hope that with a service we have to pay for, we get better service and that we as its customers actually get better value for money as well as the tax payer saving money from it.
I suppose I'm just sitting here with my head in the clouds though .......Olympic Countdown Challenge #145 ~ DFW Nerd #389 ~ Debt Free Date: [STRIKE]December 2015[/STRIKE] September 2015
:j BabySpendalot arrived 26/6/11 :j0 -
I have just read this and I think some of the concerns raised by posters have been answered however a couple of things jumped out
"We know that one of the most significant issues for non-resident parents is when contact with their children is denied or withheld. This can lead to tension and hostility between the parents, especially where maintenance is still being collected through the statutory system. We are keen to explore approaches that allow maintenance arrangements to be considered in the round when determining appropriate contact enforcement measures. We recognise, however, that there are challenges in linking maintenance and contact in this way, most importantly how such decisions might impact on the best interests of the child. We also recognise that it is important that this issue is considered within the context of wider reforms that are currently being progressed elsewhere in government. We have therefore requested that the Family Justice Review consider this issue as part of its wider work in developing options for reform of the Family Justice System"
So is this going to mean pay per view - not right!
Also talks about closing all cases over a two period and allowing parents to come to an agreement or sign up to new stat service however does that mean that all cases will be calculated on new CMEC rules or would we still have CSA1 and 2 calculations on the new system if parents couldn't agree?
0 -
newyearnewme wrote: »
Also talks about closing all cases over a two period and allowing parents to come to an agreement or sign up to new stat service however does that mean that all cases will be calculated on new CMEC rules or would we still have CSA1 and 2 calculations on the new system if parents couldn't agree?
No, they've said that all the cases on the system will be assessed with whatever their new calculation system is.0 -
I understood it that the already planned CMEC gross income system would still be used for the calculations under the new system which is something like 12% for one child, 15% for 2 and 19% for 3 or more (not exactly sure on the %)
That system was already legislated for under Labour and was due to start in 2011 even before this consultation startedOlympic Countdown Challenge #145 ~ DFW Nerd #389 ~ Debt Free Date: [STRIKE]December 2015[/STRIKE] September 2015
:j BabySpendalot arrived 26/6/11 :j0 -
The UK has a £43 billion interest bill this year due to our national debt. That is £1,800 per household.
So you would prefer taxes were raised opposed to potential savings made in areas such as CMEC?
I'm not about to get into a political debate about the state of the country.I suppose the Gov could simply give up, admit defeat and close down CMEC. Would be a political nightmare.
Not a political nightmare at all.
It would be great if they closed the whole damn C-Mess down and started again.
The big but is how would the govt offer recourse to the PWCs that are owed arrears? That is the question.
Would there be a cut off point? For example, PWC is owed 25K in arrears. At the moment an arrears agreement is in place whereby the arrears are being paid off at £55 per month. Highly unlikely the whole arrears would ever be paid off...and, of course,interest free.One of my bugbears.
I proposed a system in my Henshaw response that would have worked....to a certain extent. No system is ever foolproof. My system would make maintenace localised not central.
But I ask you, in general, in your opinion, and to give the govt it's due, how would you get errant fathers in their various forms to pay up?0 -
I suppose the Gov could simply give up, admit defeat and close down CMEC. Would be a political nightmare.
Not sure I entirely agree.
I do think the UK law should fall into line with the rest of the EU, e.g. maintenance be based on needs of a child, curerently is a % of a parents income. And a PWC whose circumstances as a single parent are self-inflicted cannot claim maintenance at all (parent exil!).0 -
The UK has a £43 billion interest bill this year due to our national debt. That is £1,800 per household.
So you would prefer taxes were raised opposed to potential savings made in areas such as CMEC?I suppose the Gov could simply give up, admit defeat and close down CMEC. Would be a political nightmare.newyearnewme wrote: »I have just read this and I think some of the concerns raised by posters have been answered however a couple of things jumped out
"We know that one of the most significant issues for non-resident parents is when contact with their children is denied or withheld. This can lead to tension and hostility between the parents, especially where maintenance is still being collected through the statutory system. We are keen to explore approaches that allow maintenance arrangements to be considered in the round when determining appropriate contact enforcement measures. We recognise, however, that there are challenges in linking maintenance and contact in this way, most importantly how such decisions might impact on the best interests of the child. We also recognise that it is important that this issue is considered within the context of wider reforms that are currently being progressed elsewhere in government. We have therefore requested that the Family Justice Review consider this issue as part of its wider work in developing options for reform of the Family Justice System"
So is this going to mean pay per view - not right!
Also talks about closing all cases over a two period and allowing parents to come to an agreement or sign up to new stat service however does that mean that all cases will be calculated on new CMEC rules or would we still have CSA1 and 2 calculations on the new system if parents couldn't agree?
Which all read the same thing to me, a posh way of closing the service down, people managed before it's existance and hence will manage if it were not there.
I think when the CSA was introduced the idea was to 'stop' families splitting up by the threat of the consequences of the csa, the tone changed with the introduction of csa 2 based on a fixed % and withdrawal of the horrid term absent father.
I agree both parents should pay, why should the goverment have to fork out for people who cant manage their own relationships and affairs? Tha said I was on the understanding that the fee was something like a £1 per collected payment.0 -
I'm not about to get into a political debate about the state of the country.
Not a political nightmare at all.
It would be great if they closed the whole damn C-Mess down and started again.
The big but is how would the govt offer recourse to the PWCs that are owed arrears? That is the question.
Would there be a cut off point? For example, PWC is owed 25K in arrears. At the moment an arrears agreement is in place whereby the arrears are being paid off at £55 per month. Highly unlikely the whole arrears would ever be paid off...and, of course,interest free.One of my bugbears.
I proposed a system in my Henshaw response that would have worked....to a certain extent. No system is ever foolproof. My system would make maintenace localised not central.
But I ask you, in general, in your opinion, and to give the govt it's due, how would you get errant fathers in their various forms to pay up?
Erm, there was a guy in my office who is a single Father and the CSA do not chase the errant mother, a most recent ex GF youngest is now with the father, I doubt the csa will persue that claim either (indeed female nrps are rare but they exist all the same).0 -
Erm, there was a guy in my office who is a single Father and the CSA do not chase the errant mother, a most recent ex GF youngest is now with the father, I doubt the csa will persue that claim either (indeed female nrps are rare but they exist all the same).
Oh for heavens sake don't bring up the fathers and mothers thing! How many times we read it on the forum.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 350.9K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.5K Spending & Discounts
- 243.9K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.9K Life & Family
- 257.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards