Is it safe to pay direct?

speedster

AnxiousMum wrote: »

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......

perhaps your blinkers are impeding your eyesight.

nowhere in any post on this thread is there mention of refusing to comply with the CSA assessment.

there are posts referring to not paying twice and to cover your azz etc. so that you don't get hit with a huge arrears bill.

AnxiousMum

mrsspendalot wrote: »

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

Was referring to speedster's post - where he had told the PWC he couldn't deal with her and the CSA.....she was hounding him for more than what CSA had ordered to be paid. Sorry for confusion!

speedster

AnxiousMum wrote: »

Was referring to speedster's post - where he had told the PWC he couldn't deal with her and the CSA.....she was hounding him for more than what CSA had ordered to be paid. Sorry for confusion!

yup. that's exactly what i posted. i ALWAYS paid the csa but refused to deal with HER as well. i sent in £500 worth of recipts to be taken off the "arrears" they contacted her to confirm and she refused to accept them as child support!! hence my refusal to fork out twice.

my point is, she made sure i also had false arrears and tried for a higher assessment by lying through her teeth and cutting overnight stays. she played the game and lost, then expected me to roll over and play dead AND give her more money. i learnt the system and returned the favour and surprise, surprise, she didn't like it. i told her i would quite happily pay the fiver a week forever, but if she wanted anymore from me, then the csa would have to be out of the equation.

it took her over 3 years to realise this. so AFAIC it's not my problem she had less money than she wanted. all she had to do was re-join the human race and apply a little bit of logic and she would have been a lot better off.

it is far too easy for unscrupulous PWC to deny payments were for child support, hence the sound advice of ONLY dealing with the CSA and NOT the pwc.

cover your azz all the way. the saying, "don't hate the player, hate the game" springs to mind.

HelpMePay

speedster wrote: »

it is far too easy for unscrupulous PWC to deny payments were for child support, hence the sound advice of ONLY dealing with the CSA and NOT the pwc.

I think this is one of the best things I have read in a long time. It is so easy for the NRP to be guilted into a position where his future finances are completely at the mercy of someone he/she failed to have an amicable relationship with.

I have generally believed that it should be either the CSA way 100% or no CSA at all, it is the only way to have a level playing field. I.e. pay the CSA amount and the CSA schedule or reach an agreeable independent solution. Going through the CSA and then trying to add on extras or apply guilt because the CSA is dragging its heals is trying to have their cake and eat it.

mrsspendalot

HelpMePay wrote: »

I have generally believed that it should be either the CSA way 100% or no CSA at all, it is the only way to have a level playing field. I.e. pay the CSA amount and the CSA schedule or reach an agreeable independent solution. Going through the CSA and then trying to add on extras or apply guilt because the CSA is dragging its heals is trying to have their cake and eat it.

This is exactly what me and my husband think too. It is one or the other. Our PWC applied to CSA because she thought she would get more money - turns out they assessed less (and subsequently nil). We said at that point that the CSA assessment was the total amount we were expected to contribute, and that meant nothing on top. We offered a private arrangement which would have been more £ each week, but with no added extras. She turned it down in favour of less money each week. She wanted maintenance direct, but we refused saying that if she wanted to stick with CSA then we paid through CSA. It just takes the stress out of it, and the arguments.

HelpMePay

mrsspendalot wrote: »

She wanted maintenance direct, but we refused saying that if she wanted to stick with CSA then we paid through CSA. It just takes the stress out of it, and the arguments.

Smart move