CSA have left me pennyless

ALIBOBSY

ohdamnit wrote: »

The reason why it doesn't "work" for many is this example:

Income: 1400

Outgoings:

Rent: 500 - this is about minimum for a house/flat where NRP could have his children stay

Bills (C tax, elec, gas, water, insurances, phone, etc) - 300

Food - 200

Car/Transport costs to get to work - 150

child money (2): 280

Total so far : 1430

So would someone like to point out how this person is being excessive? They are £30 down a month without having a life, or any extraneous expenses! Plenty of people in this kind of position.

Don't get me wrong I am not sure how to resolve the situation, as you should pay for your kids, but just saying rather blithely that 25% is not a lot ignores the fact that the person has to live somewhere (with suitable space if they want to have kids over to stay), and eat, travel to work etc.

Not my scenario btw. This coming from an NRP who was paying 23% for his first child with 8 overnight stays a month. Also paying for the mortgage on the ex marital home, bills, whilst not living there for 7 months. Then ex wanting money from the house sale.

Ok so rent you are stuck with, but insurances/phones etc can be MSE ed to ge them down. Plus £150 a month for petrol seems alot. Even if both can't be reduced much that food bill for one is crazy. Many on here feed whole families for less.Plus if the nrp has some shared childcare isn't the total reduced?

ali x

speedster

Rorkes_Drift wrote: »

How am I mistaken?

Its not dusputed the Aussies have better compliance rates, but I dont know what legislaiton sets penalties for PWC's for cutting contract, I only know the rule that stops a claim if the PWC chooses to be one. I dont call that a penalty as such. It only stops australia getting a reputation for being single-parent & teen pregnancy capital of the world and saves burden on the aussie taxpayer

in Aus, if the pwc stops or cuts contact they lose some, or all of their money. the exact opposite happens here. in fact, caseworkers often advise that PWC cut overnight stays in order to increase the amount due. :mad:

and i think you'll find that pound for pound, our single parent, teen preg rate is pretty much the worst in the developed world.

zarazara

Yes definately. We need to stop supporting teenage mums.
Everything is weighted in the womans favour. All we do as a society is encourage immorality.

PlayingHardball

Getting back to the OP question. He is sharing his bills 50/50 with his new partner (so he's one of the lucky ones I guess as far as household monthly income being higher then a single NRP).

Part of his income (25%) goes to supporting the children with his ex, as it should do.

I'm not really sure what the issue is, or question? Yes, it makes budgeting tighter when you have children, isn't this what we all expect?

Flyboy152

Rorkes_Drift wrote: »

The child maint rules in South Africa were adopted from Australia. Assuming its still the same, maintenance is based on child actual needs and for not improving the quality of life of the PWC, secondly, a PWC can only make a claim for CM provided their circumstances as a single parent are not self-inflicted.

The aussie system is designed to chase deadbeat dads, not to encourage teenage pregnancies and single parent families.

Huh :huh:..

jetplane

desperatedavewhu wrote: »

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. QUOTE]

You do not say what percentage you paid previously or whether you paid extras but I agree with other posters that 25% is not excessive for 3 children you probably paid more out when you lived with them. If you previously included extras can these be renegotiated? Do you have any of your children overnight on a regular basis? As shared care can reduce your contribution.

Surely your girlfriend has always known and accepts that you have other priorities and responsibilties, can she not support you by increasing her household contribution? I don't mean to suggest that she pays for your children but if your income was to reduce for another reason ie. redundancy, reduction in hours or a less well paid job would she still see you homeless?

Blob

When they were together, his ex I mean, he did not have to support 2 homes as he is now expected to do. We all possibly paid more for our children when we were in a family unit, but the NRP has to look to them-self first or they would not be able to pay anything to the children.

jetplane

Sorry Blob you do not know that he is having to support 2 homes, he is paying for half a home now with his girlfriend and he supports 3 children. His ex wife may well be paying for the other home which is why I asked if he was paying extras eg. mainenance and mortgage. He may even be better off now who knows his ex wife might not work and he might have had no one to share the bills with & 3 kids to support when they were together.

I am well aware that the CSA are useless and not fit for purpose and have driven many NRP to despair and PWC for that matter.

Blob

I accept what you say, but in my opinion, and it is only an opinion, and I know that many will not agree with it. The payments for your children should not be a % but a set amount. Then everyone knows where they stand and they cant bleat about it if the family unit breaks down. We in this country have possibly the highest rate of family breakdown in Europe, we also have the highest personal debt in Europe. The CSA are now trying to get people to take out loans to pay off arrears that are run up by the incompetence and time waisting of the CSA. Make it a set amount, and take it through the Tax system, then there is some of the problems solved, not all by any means.

PlayingHardball

Blob wrote: »

When they were together, his ex I mean, he did not have to support 2 homes as he is now expected to do. We all possibly paid more for our children when we were in a family unit, but the NRP has to look to them-self first or they would not be able to pay anything to the children.

Blob.....where did you get the idea that the NRP is having to support 2 homes? A NRP is not paying for 'home support' they are paying 'child support.

I think I can speak for all PWC in stating categorically that we do not...NOT... expect NRP to support our homes. 25% in the OP case would not pay a mortgage and all the bills that 'support' a home, I think you should give the PWC a bit of credit.

Also....when the OP was with his ex he didn't have another partner sharing his bills 50/50. I'm not entirely clear on your post, can you clarify?