CSA have left me pennyless

desperatedavewhu

I have 3 children with my ex wife, and have always paid her a set amount which we both agreed to. recently, the CSA have changed their terms and conditions which means that any money i pay her for the children will not affect her other benefits. this prompted my ex wife to go to the CSA, who have now started to take 25% of my wage, direct from my employer.

I currently have a girlfriend, who i live with and we pay for all the rent and bills 50/50, but now that the CSA are taking such a huge chunk of my wages i can no longer afford the rent with her.

Is there anywhere that i can get help for this? or do the CSa expect me to go homeless??

Debicj

Sorry to confirm that as you are paying for 3 children, the CSA will take 25% of your earnings. It makes no difference to the assessment if you are not left with enough to pay your rent. As far as I am aware, there is no help available if you are working.

AnxiousMum

I guess you need to be thankful for the years that your ex went with a private agreement and accepted a payment less than what CSA would've made you pay. Would've been nice for her to discuss it with you first and least give you the heads up - but when they changed the rules that those on IS could now keep ALL child support rather than just the disregarded portion and the rest payable BACK to IS which would've reimbursed the system somewhat for the cost of raising the children......we all knew this would happen to alot of guys who were paying the way you were.
Unfortunately though - them's the rules - 3 kids = 25% of your income. It is assumed that the PWC also spends a certain percentage of their income on the kids (and believe it or not, in some cases, we do, or we put money away for their future education! - we're not all using the CS money to go party with the girls!) - sorry, that's in case Speedster gets here hehe and therefore you are both paying according to your incomes, just as you would if still together.

I hope your partner is committed to the relationship and take it one step further - being there to support each other in emotional, health and financial terms. It takes a special person to get involved with another who has kids to support!

PlayingHardball

Hmmmm....so basically your ex committed fraud for several years, by not declaring her income during your private financial agreement! Had she done so, it is my understanding that part of your payments would have gone to inland rev, as anxiousmum states above.

And now she reckons she will be better off with our money and your money! How nice for her!

While I agree with the percentage basis that the CSA work out NRP obligations, it makes my blood boil when I hear of PWC milking the system such as this woman, and getting away with it.

There are a lot of unpleasant people out there, both PWC and NRP-some willing to do whatever it takes to get as much money as they can, some willing to do what it takes to avoid paying any child support (or as little as possible).

I guess by doing the right thing for our children, us 'good parents' can hold our heads up high.

Blob

As has been said that is what you have to pay.

You have options as well when it comes to a fight, again it is said above that it would appear that you ex has committed Fraud, a very nasty word! In the event that you can prove that you have been paying this money to your ex, you might like to put the information in a letter to the Criminal Compliance Team and the Benefits Fraud people. They I am sure will be very interested in this fact, it is your call. If you inform her of this she may possible want to reconsider her action as she may end up in Court charged with Benefit fraud, as I understand it she may then be sent to prison, and you will get the children, is that an option.

This is a vary hard line to take but sometimes it is the only thing that some people understand.

Best of luck.

terryw

I am sorry to hear of your situation. I wish that my children just cost me 25 per cent of my net pay.

Loopy_Girl

terryw wrote: »

I am sorry to hear of your situation. I wish that my children just cost me 25 per cent of my net pay.

To be fair, it's not really the point is it?

she's been quite happy sitting getting her IS, CTC, HB and CTB and then taking backhanders from the OP when she should only have been getting £20 of it.

Another example of why the stupid benefit rule shouldn't have came in and another example, sadly, of a money orientated PWC which gives the Speedsters et al fuel to think that all female PWC are like that *sigh*

OP - I'm afraid that the 25% is the amount that the CSA deem you should pay for your 3 kids. It's not going to change.

Do you speak to your ex at all? Perhaps a hint that you 'may have to go to the DWP about the back payments' may nudge her back into a private arrangement? I don't know how much you were paying in comparison to what you are paying now but maybe a suggestion of meeting it half way?

She's done a very underhand thing but it's not going to change it I'm afraid.

terryw

Loopy_Girl wrote: »

To be fair, it's not really the point is it?

she's been quite happy sitting getting her IS, CTC, HB and CTB and then taking backhanders from the OP when she should only have been getting £20 of it.

Another example of why the stupid benefit rule shouldn't have came in and another example, sadly, of a money orientated PWC which gives the Speedsters et al fuel to think that all female PWC are like that *sigh*

OP - I'm afraid that the 25% is the amount that the CSA deem you should pay for your 3 kids. It's not going to change.

Do you speak to your ex at all? Perhaps a hint that you 'may have to go to the DWP about the back payments' may nudge her back into a private arrangement? I don't know how much you were paying in comparison to what you are paying now but maybe a suggestion of meeting it half way?

She's done a very underhand thing but it's not going to change it I'm afraid.

Sorry, Loopy, but we must agree to disagree. I agree with much of what you say but two wrongs do make a right. If the Op wants to take the high ground, then he must give the authorities the whole situation - he has paid her direct and no doubt has proof of this. Your suggestion about "dropping hints" is merely acting in collusion to deprive the honest taxpayer.

I stand by my remark that I would be a happy bunny if my kids only cost me 25 per cent of my take-home pay.

speedster

it's not that all PWC are like that.

but the amount of stories i hear on here and other froums, plus personal knowledge of cases, there is a significant problem with greedy pwc, much in the same way there are a significant number of NRP's who'll do anything to avoid their responsibilities.

Loopy_Girl

terryw wrote: »

I stand by my remark that I would be a happy bunny if my kids only cost me 25 per cent of my take-home pay.

Actually there is nothing to disagree about terry - I agree with the above statement too...and I only have the 1 small person!!!

I think the point here is though is that she has agreed to the amount and he has worked his life round that.

Beleive me, I am the first to give a non-paying/dodging/errant NRP a hard time on here but she has been very underhand and greedy and there is no need for it.

Unless he was paying her a very low sum (of which the figure would be subjective to every individual) then she didn't have to do what she did - she could have asked him for an increase.

Now of course we don't know the full story but you can only comment on what is posted.

Loopy_Girl

speedster wrote: »

it's not that all PWC are like that.

but the amount of stories i hear on here and other froums, plus personal knowledge of cases, there is a significant problem with greedy pwc, much in the same way there are a significant number of NRP's who'll do anything to avoid their responsibilities.

Yeah well...I can only hope that you don't think I am the scum that you clearly think I am with a tunnel vision....doubt it really but hey ho