Is it safe to pay direct?

speedster

tattycath wrote: »

And as speedster said-the pwc was hellbent on destroying him-if she had not been a biatch and if she had put the needs of the child first instead of grinding her axe, she would have received maintenance-end of.

try explaining that to the pro pwc militants idiots on here.

they cant see past their blinkers.....

mrsspendalot

AnxiousMum wrote: »

at the end of the day.....the one who was not contributing on a fair basis to the child's needs!

Have to slightly disagree there - if a PWC chooses to go to the CSA for a calculation, then they must accept the CSA's decision. The NRP is then only liable to pay in accordance with that decision. That is what the CSA state is contributing on a fair basis to the child's needs at that point in time, based on the assessed circumstances. If a PWC is offered a 'better deal' privately and refuses it, then I think that is their problem.

I am PWC and have gone to the CSA because my ex wouldn't pay a penny. I have chosen therefore to accept whatever the CSA assess as being the contribution. That will be the same when the amount goes up and goes down - as long as it is based on true fact and not someone lying to hide income.

I am also NRPP and my husband has at the moment a nil assessment. The PWC was offered a 'better deal' privately and refused it. We would have paid - but she said no. That is not us being stubborn, it is her being stubborn and 'cutting her nose off to spite her face'. She is saying she would rather have nothing. I can't see how that is our fault?

speedster

to the militants on here, that will be your fault. if the pwc wants to cut off their noses to spite their face, then why the hell does that make it the NRP's problem???

like i say, their blinkered, pro pwc views are pathetic.

DX2

AnxiousMum wrote: »

Actually, I think DX2 said it best..........

Now that doesn't happen often

speedster

DX2 wrote: »

Now that doesn't happen often

gotta be a first....... :eek:

AnxiousMum

mrsspendalot wrote: »

Have to slightly disagree there - if a PWC chooses to go to the CSA for a calculation, then they must accept the CSA's decision. The NRP is then only liable to pay in accordance with that decision. That is what the CSA state is contributing on a fair basis to the child's needs at that point in time, based on the assessed circumstances. If a PWC is offered a 'better deal' privately and refuses it, then I think that is their problem.

I am PWC and have gone to the CSA because my ex wouldn't pay a penny. I have chosen therefore to accept whatever the CSA assess as being the contribution. That will be the same when the amount goes up and goes down - as long as it is based on true fact and not someone lying to hide income.

I am also NRPP and my husband has at the moment a nil assessment. The PWC was offered a 'better deal' privately and refused it. We would have paid - but she said no. That is not us being stubborn, it is her being stubborn and 'cutting her nose off to spite her face'. She is saying she would rather have nothing. I can't see how that is our fault?

Of your assessment is nil as per the CSA, then that is supposed to be a 'fair' assessment of your circumstances at the moment. By 'fair', I do mean CSA standards - as that is what the standard has been set at. However, the OP has provided information by PM - is capable of paying an amount despite being out of the CSA's jurisdiction. In the post I made the comment you refer to, the poster has had an amount given to pay by the CSA, but refused to pay it as said 'he can't deal with the CSA and her', so made no payments. That is not fair - the fair thing for him to have done would've been to pay the CSA stipulated amount and to hell with the rantings of the PWC wanting more.
However, if an assessment has been made, either provide the paperwork for a reassessment, or make the payments you've been told are fair by the CSA. So, not sure what you are 'disagreeing' with......

HelpMePay

To clarify, as the OP, I can, will and want to pay more than the CSA assessment. Its just a matter of finding the best way to do it. I'm guessing the comment referred to was directed at someone else.

AnxiousMum

HelpMePay wrote: »

To clarify, as the OP, I can, will and want to pay more than the CSA assessment. Its just a matter of finding the best way to do it. I'm guessing the comment referred to was directed at someone else.

Yes, it was

mrsspendalot

AnxiousMum wrote: »

In the post I made the comment you refer to, the poster has had an amount given to pay by the CSA, but refused to pay it as said 'he can't deal with the CSA and her', so made no payments. That is not fair - the fair thing for him to have done would've been to pay the CSA stipulated amount and to hell with the rantings of the PWC wanting more.

<snip>

So, not sure what you are 'disagreeing' with......

Perhaps I mis-interpreted the post, in that case. I read it that his assessment was £5 a week and it was stuck at that for 3 years, and he would happily have paid more privately, but the PWC refused. If that was not what the post meant then I have got my wires crossed ... sorry

ohdamnit

AnxiousMum wrote: »

OP - what about a direct deposit into your wife's account - but under REFERENCE marking it as Child support for child X and the date it is covering. That takes care of it quite simply, and means that you can get on with supporting your children. It doesn't have to be difficult - but the above would ensure that the payments are clearly marked for child support.

Doesn't work to note, you have to it signed each time by the PWC as they can claim it is not for Child Maintenance.