The CSA....again?

kelloggs36

The CSA will never please everybody - for every PWC who gets nothing there is an NRP who refuses to pay, and then all NRPs get a reputation. Then there are the cases where the NRPs happily pay, but the PWCs are shown to be money grabbing !!!!!es!!

The old system took into account BOTH the PWC and the NRP's financial circumstances. The reason that the PWC's new partner's income details were not asked for (except when they have a child together) is because no Protected Income is calcluated in respect of the PWC - this is because clearly no money is being taken from their household, so there does not need to be a minimum income (save for Income Support claimants). The only reason that the NRP's partner's income details are asked for under the old system is because they need to check that the household income DOES NOT FALL BELOW A CERTAIN LEVEL - IT DOES NOT EVER, EVER, EVER INCREASE THE LEVEL OF MAINTENANCE THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN CALCULATED. The Exempt Income - using only the income and circumstances of the NRP is deducted from his net income and compared to the requirements in the Assessment Unit - that is determined by the age of the child and certain allowances set by Income Support for that age. The older the child, the less they require. This calculation results in what is called the NOTIONAL ASSESSMENT. This is what the NRP is expected to pay. After this, they have to check his household income and other circumstances, such as other children (who aren't his) and partners they have to support etc to ensure that their household income does not fall below the Income Support levels PLUS more as they are not expected to live on Income Support levels. All the household income is taken into account, and the Protected Income calculated and then the Notional Assessment is deducted from the leftover figure. If, after having deducted the Notional Assessment, there is a negative figure, clearly the NRP cannot afford to pay his full requirement. He has to pay the difference unless there is an excess. If there is an excess, he keeps it. So many people are under the false impression that the NRP's partner's income increases the assessment because they don't appreciate that if the NRP had no partner, he would in 99.9% of cases always pay his Notional Assessment. If they fail to provide this information then they get no Protected Income because they can't calculate it without the full details, and end up paying more in many cases than if they had provided the info as they can't see if there is a shortfall.

Regarding PWCs on benefits - why should the taxpayer have to pick up the full bill for her being on benefits? The child is both parents responsibility, but clearly she (and I say she but there are male PWCs out there, so no offence hopefully) cannot provide for her own child so the taxpayer has to cough up. However, there is another parent who is responsible for that child regardless of the circumstances. If they were together, the taxpayer would not be asked to pick up the bill, so that is why they got nothing extra. Now, however, they get an extra tenner if the NRP pays ten pounds or more.

The new new system that is due makes no sense if the ethos of self-sufficiency is to be kept. If a PWC splits from her partner and gets full benefits, AND full CSA maintenance, she/he will in many cases be much better off than they would have been had they stayed with their partners. Mmm, me thinks that there is an incentive to have children and split up!!! Believe me, some will do that I have seen it already!!

There are always two sides to an argument - one may say that they would be happy to pay CSA if the PWC gets all the money as they wish for the children to get all the benefit from it, however, others will argue that as they can't control how the PWC spends the money, they should not pay at all as the children don't see it.

You can never please everybody and the CSA is stuck in the middle. Yes they have their problems (believe me I have been on the receiving end of their incompetence!) but much of it is not the staff's fault - the law is the law and whether they agree with it or not, there is nothing they can do about it. The computer system truely is **** - I have seen it first hand and they are as frustrated as their customers/claimants! They WANT to get it sorted out, but can't.

Nothing will really change under the new system because the Government are under delusions that ALL NRPs want to pay and will comply when the rules get tough. They won't. Of course many will, but many won't. They believe that if they get rid of all benefit cases and only deal with claims from those who can't deal with it privately, their caseload will drop but it won't. Those who aren't on benefits in most cases are already in the situation where they can't sort out the situation by themselves. Either because the PWC is being bloody minded, or because the NRP won't pay. Those cases already exsist and they will continue to exist.

zoezoe_3

krashovr10ad wrote:

++
I don't see why my ex-partner shouldn't get the money if she's on benefits - it is meant for my son after all & not his mother (don't complain about that statement)...
++

She gets all the money you give to to the CSA. The amount of money you give her will reduce her ability to claim benefits though.

krashovr10ad wrote:

++
After all when my ex-partner got married to a man who earnt £25k the CSA were still happy to take £74 a week from me and if my ex-partners was working a few hours and claiming WTC she would get the money in addition to anything else - what makes benefits a special case..?
++

So if both parents work the children are better off, if one or neither works then the child lives in a home with a reduced income. So what is your problem ? The system needs to encourage people to work.

zoezoe_3

scotlass99 wrote:

Hi

I am a woman and must say CSA system is obviously not working properly.

... All of a sudden he gets a letter from CSA saying he must pay double that. When he asked his ex why she had went to CSA when they already had an arrangement she couldn't give him a reason, but it was clear the reason was spite.

This is what I disagree with and there is no sympathy to NRP's who have had a private arrangement and are now crippled by weekly payments.

Why should a private agreement over rule the *system* ? This coudl lead to absent parents agreeing to pay less than they should and perhaps the benefits system picking up the bill.

TokochickUK

hi sorry can i just ask a quick question?
my hubby and i seperated at teh beginning of this yr but he was still supporting us financially 3 wks ago he finally took all his stuff and i made a claim for income support. Now i understand that the csa are involved automaticly, but i have recieved the form and asked to opt out .I have had severe PND for the last 1.5 yrs and i have only the last 6 months started to smile again, having all this happening has been very stressfull and last week i broke down and had to have a phsyciatric assesment done and the crisis team were called in again. my ex is still paying the mortgage and a number of the bills and he is happy to do this as a form of support and security for the children untill further info from legal advise ie solicitors. i know i will have to have an interview to discuss my reasons for not wanting it persued and im scared stupid just as it means more people and i dont cope so well with new people at the best of times, he is contributing more ie the mortgage is over £350 then heating adn electric and water on top than he would via csa but the important thing is the security of our boys home. I dont really know what im asking i suppose just does anybody know how scary it will be? thanks in advance x
Sus x

TokochickUK

anybody? x

lil_me

Anything he pays towards can be taken off your claim, you really need to speak to them about this one. If there is no reason (like possibility of violence etc) that you need to opt out for they will usually insist on going via CSA but on Income Support you will only see £10 of whatever he pays. The rest will be paid to them to give back what they pay you.

TokochickUK

he doesnt actually pay anything to me, its all done via his bank and the mortgage compaany there is no payment protection plan. income support have ok`d this as im not recieveing the money from him and he has proven this. the csa form also states due to undue stress, which i have spoke with the number on the form and explained and she said i needed to put it into writting and then wait for th appointment, my hv is also going to write a letter of support about not going via csa . i just really needed to know if the interviewer would be as scary and as mean as some say?
sus x thank you x

asandwhen

MissMotivation wrote:

What??

How is the system geared up to benefit women? For every "poor me poor me" post on here from Men who feel that they shouldn't have to contribute a fair amount to their child's upbringing there are double the amount from women who only want a fair contribution, many who are living in poverty to provide a roof over their child/childrens head.

The OP was complaing that her brother was hard done by because he has to pay £128 per month per child!! I wish it only cost me £128 per month to feed/clothe/entertain/keep a roof over my Daughters head....trust me it costs a lot more than that!

yes but does it cost you more than £256 per month? (128 plus your 128) i seriously doubt it for 1 child.

Rebekka_2

asandwhen wrote:

yes but does it cost you more than £256 per month? (128 plus your 128) i seriously doubt it for 1 child.

To put a roof over 1 childs head or even if you want to share that between 1 mother and 1 child is going to be more than that

space_rider

I had a visit when I first went on income support and it was ok. They only wanted copies of my bank statements, proof of who I was etc.

If you can manage to work 16 hours per week and go on tax credit it will be much better for you as you can keep maintenance payments. But remember that if you on income support you will get council tax benefit but not necessarily if you are on tax credits. I came off income support and went on to tax credit and was over £200 per month worse off. I had to go back to work as my employer had held my job open for almost 3 years after I was unable to go back to work after maternity leave because my child was ill.