2 CSA Cases

gratefulforhelp_2

mrsspendalot wrote: »

I completely agree! A real shame. Before long though when the system changes, the ex who won't agree with you will have to pay to have CSA assess you. That might be enough to persuade her to come to a private agreement. Hope the other parent isn't too put out by having to go to CSA because of the other mother!

I think the NRP will be charged a fee also under the new system?

And to look at this from another point of view, the NRP in my case has a 7 year history of non-compliance with the CSA, and job and house-hopping, but still thought he was a good candidate for a private arrangement.

If a person will not pay the CSA until forced to, how long will they reliably pay for a private arrangement?

mrsspendalot

gratefulforhelp wrote: »

I think the NRP will be charged a fee also under the new system?

And to look at this from another point of view, the NRP in my case has a 7 year history of non-compliance with the CSA, and job and house-hopping, but still thought he was a good candidate for a private arrangement.

If a person will not pay the CSA until forced to, how long will they reliably pay for a private arrangement?

The NRP will only be charged a fee if they have to pay maintenance through the CSA, and it will be a % of the maintenance liability. They won't have to pay to apply, unless they are the one choosing to apply.

I agree entirely on your last point - my ex has just avoided CSA for a year, so I would have no hope of a private agreement under the new system. I will therefore have to pay the fee to have him assessed and held accountable.

However, as an NRPP, this will be good for us as my husband was 100% compliant with his private arrangement, and his ex wife went to the CSA out of greed. She won't want to pay the £100 fee, so we should benefit from being able to make a private arrangement with her once more and come out of the CSA system.

gratefulforhelp_2

So the NRP won't pay if the application was a spurious one or they don't have the income?

And I will call the £100 a worthwhile investment, I wonder if that means we will have consumer rights, since we are paying them?

mrsspendalot

gratefulforhelp wrote: »

So the NRP won't pay if the application was a spurious one or they don't have the income?

And I will call the £100 a worthwhile investment, I wonder if that means we will have consumer rights, since we are paying them?

The applicant has to pay the upfront fee of £100, whether that is PWC or NRP.

After that, the NRP is assessed and if both parents agree to 'maintenance direct' the NRP will not be charged any fees for using the service. They will just pay the PWC direct the amount assessed.

If the PWC chooses, or the NRP is non-compliant, then payments can be made through the CSA. In this case the NRP has to pay an additional % of their maintenance on top by way of a collection fee. The PWC will then lose a % of their maintenance by way of a collection fee.

I will therefore have to pay £100 to apply, but will choose maintenance direct so there are no further fees. If my ex is then non-compliant and they have to enforce payments, it will change to collection and he will pay extra % on top of his maintenance, but I will lose a % of my maintenance!

I certainly hope that if we have to pay, we get better service than we do now. I doubt it though

gratefulforhelp_2

So even though your ex is non-compliant, you will choose maintenance direct? Triumph of hope over experience, or do you think that the financial incentive will work on him?

I wouldn't expect my ex to last more than 2 payments.

mrsspendalot

gratefulforhelp wrote: »

So even though your ex is non-compliant, you will choose maintenance direct? Triumph of hope over experience, or do you think that the financial incentive will work on him?

I wouldn't expect my ex to last more than 2 payments.

I will have to choose maintenance direct because I feel very annoyed about losing up to 12% of my maintenance to have them collect it from him. If he doesn't pay it, they can still enforce it, so I'll cross that bridge when I come to it I guess. I think most NRPs will pay up through maintenance direct because if they don't they are going to have to pay about another 20% or something on top of their maintenance straight to the CSA, plus further fees for being non-compliant if I remember rightly. I don't think my ex will want to pay 20% maintenance, and then another 20% in additional fees.

I just know I will have no joy with a private arrangement with no CSA involvement whatsoever, so If I'm going to have to use them, I want it to be as cheap for me as possible!

DUTR

kevinjh2011 wrote: »

thanks for your reply, I thought they were trying to get people to come to agreements between themselves, it just seams silly that they would not take 1 agreement into account when doing there other one.

If you want both cases to go via the csa then you can, it is not just the PWC that can have a case opened, the NRP can too :j

gratefulforhelp_2

mrsspendalot wrote: »

I will have to choose maintenance direct because I feel very annoyed about losing up to 12% of my maintenance to have them collect it from him. If he doesn't pay it, they can still enforce it, so I'll cross that bridge when I come to it I guess. I think most NRPs will pay up through maintenance direct because if they don't they are going to have to pay about another 20% or something on top of their maintenance straight to the CSA, plus further fees for being non-compliant if I remember rightly. I don't think my ex will want to pay 20% maintenance, and then another 20% in additional fees.

I just know I will have no joy with a private arrangement with no CSA involvement whatsoever, so If I'm going to have to use them, I want it to be as cheap for me as possible!

I hadn't realised there would be such a financial incentive. Maybe I should think on...although as the system is currently, one cannot rely on them acting when a NRP stops payment...so can one rely on them deducting these fees and acting to enforce payment?

I guess their argument is they will have fewer people to deal with?

fannyanna

mrsspendalot wrote: »

I think most NRPs will pay up through maintenance direct because if they don't they are going to have to pay about another 20% or something on top of their maintenance straight to the CSA

Can the NRP choose to do this regardless of what the PWC wants? We only use the CSA because of the PWC. We'd happily use maintenance direct but I can imagine PWC would try to make everything through the CSA just to be awkward. It would seem unfair if we end up financially penalised just because the PWC is difficult!

mrsspendalot

fannyanna wrote: »

Can the NRP choose to do this regardless of what the PWC wants? We only use the CSA because of the PWC. We'd happily use maintenance direct but I can imagine PWC would try to make everything through the CSA just to be awkward. It would seem unfair if we end up financially penalised just because the PWC is difficult!

I can't remember what it says exactly, but I'm sure that if the NRP wants to pay maintenance direct then they will be allowed to, as to force them to do so would be unfair as it means charges. It was this part that interested me as NRPP, as I like to know what it will mean the other way round for us too. I can't think why a PWC would push for collection service when it means they are going to lose upto 12% of their maintenance though.

I can understand why the government think charging fees will make more people be reasonable with each other. As a PWC I'm not going to cut my nose off to spite my face and forgo 12% of my maintenance just to make the NRP pay through CSA. And I really can't imagine my non-compliant and unreasonable ex wanting to pay 20% surcharge on his maintenance payments either, so I'm sure he will pay maintenance direct. So maintenance direct will be my preferred option, and I'll just have to accept the £100 fee to have the security of an arrangement that can be enforced, as I don't trust him to pay a penny without any involvement at all from the CSA.