2 CSA Cases

fannyanna

mrsspendalot wrote: »

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 missed that bit. In that case I agree it would seem daft for the PWC to not want to use maintenance direct.

Although daft and this PWC seem to go hand in hand

RedSky

There are a number of incentives being proposed to encourage private arrangements or maintenance direct.

The following charges are being proposed:
• An upfront application charge of around £100 to be paid by the applicant.
• A total application charge for parents on benefits in the range of £50 with £20 of this paid upfront and the remainder paid in instalments. The instalments for the application only become payable where maintenance is in payment. Therefore a parent on benefit who applies will never pay more than the upfront charge if no maintenance is received from the application.
• A charge of £20-25 for the calculation only service to be paid by the applicant.
• A collection surcharge (on top of maintenance to be paid) of between 15% and 20% to be paid by the non-resident parent.
• A collection deduction charge (retained from maintenance collected for the parent with care) of between 7% and 12%.
• A charge on the non-resident parent when enforcement measures (e.g. an order of sale for property) need to be used because of non-compliance.
• An application charge for the calculation only service

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/ia-strengthening-families.pdf

I don't agree with a percentage based collection surcharge and collection deduction charge. Percentages do not resemble the true cost of collection and may lead to profiteering on higher CM assessments. The document states £200 as the full cost of an application but it does not state the true cost for the CSA to collect and distribute CM.

gratefulforhelp_2

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!

You could be describing me, it depends how you define difficult...

mrsspendalot wrote: »

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.

Because 88% of something is of greater value in bringing up children than 100% of nothing.
I am 99.9% certain, based on past experience, that the NRP in my case will pay for max 2 months, then he will run out of cash for hair gel or aftershave, or whatever, and the maintenance will be delayed and then forgotten.

mum24boys

I read on the Welfare reform bill that another consideration being taken is that a PWC will not be allowed to use the CSA unless he/she can prove that they have tried to come to a private agreement but the NRP wont due to non-compliance. The CSA wont be used as a weapon anymore which for some compliant NRP like my DH is good.

fannyanna

gratefulforhelp wrote: »

You could be describing me, it depends how you define difficult...

Haha - I'm sure that's not the case

Other than the usual abusive calls to both my husband (her ex) and me (as well as our family), snide remarks like "I hope your Mum gets cancer and dies" and the very typical sp*rm donor comments etc in general this PWC is just not a very nice woman. None of this is directly relevent to working out maintenance but I'm sure you get the picture - it's not exactly easy dealing with her.

When it came to maintenance she was demanding a ridiculous amount of money from my husband and using the CSA as a threat. I looked into things and realised that using the CSA would result in a fairer contribution (and a lot less than what she was demanding). This she did not like - especially since she was attempting to use it against my husband.

My husband has two children with two seperate women. The other PWC is the complete opposite. We have a good relationship with her and she's extremely reasonable. And as she's so good in general we take it with a pinch of salt on the odd occassion that she seems to overstep the line (and I'm sure this statement works both ways).

Our own personal experience shows how things can be unecessarily difficult just because of the PWC - and I'm sure in a lot of other cases this is true of NRP's.

mrsspendalot

mum24boys wrote: »

I read on the Welfare reform bill that another consideration being taken is that a PWC will not be allowed to use the CSA unless he/she can prove that they have tried to come to a private agreement but the NRP wont due to non-compliance. The CSA wont be used as a weapon anymore which for some compliant NRP like my DH is good.

Wonder how you can prove you have tried though .....

gratefulforhelp_2

fannyanna wrote: »

Other than the usual abusive calls to both my husband (her ex) and me (as well as our family), snide remarks like "I hope your Mum gets cancer and dies" and the very typical sp*rm donor comments etc in general this PWC is just not a very nice woman. None of this is directly relevent to working out maintenance but I'm sure you get the picture - it's not exactly easy dealing with her.

*sighs with relief* it's not me then...sounds a charmer.

mrsspendalot wrote: »

Wonder how you can prove you have tried though .....

Yeah, and why the onus would be on the PWC...if the CSA is a weapon its a pretty rubbish one, like trying to shoot someone with jelly.

mum24boys

gratefulforhelp wrote: »

*sighs with relief* it's not me then...sounds a charmer.



Yeah, and why the onus would be on the PWC...if the CSA is a weapon its a pretty rubbish one, like trying to shoot someone with jelly.

I think its the difference between compliant and non-compliant. Not all NRP try to dodge paying child support. The CSA was a very effective weapon against my DH. He was treated like a criminal and threatened with DEO, passport removal and confiscating his driving licence, he was told all this from the off.
I think if a NRP is non-compliant then nothing but the full force of the CSA should be used. If however a NRP is compliant ie - No arrears, payment made on time and never late and can be trusted then why would a PWC want to use CSA unless its a weapon or convenience.

As for proving if the PWC had tried to approach the NRP about a private agreement then im sure proper paperwork has to be signed and documented and agreed. If a receipt for a recored delivery letter to prove the request was sent but ignored could be proof. Bank statements to prove child support had not been paid could be proof if the other relevant documentation has been signed and the NRP are trying to dodge. As i said it was only a consideration not a fact that its definitely happening. It did say that all these thing would be done before the case closed as the PWC will receive a letter 3 months before the case closing asking what they want to do. It will be up to PWC ultimately what they choose.
The whole of the CSA needs to be made fairer to those NRP who are compliant.

gratefulforhelp_2

mum24boys wrote: »

The whole of the CSA needs to be made fairer to those NRP who are compliant.

I'm sure that's right, and they really had no business threatening him with that stuff if he was doing the right thing.

The NRP in my case would never keep up a private agreement...in fact he ended up on a DEO because he wouldn't pay the CSA, so the whole thing would be a pointless exercise.

mrsspendalot

So what if you have no idea how to contact the NRP? It may have been 10 years since the parents divorced, and they may not have had contact with their kids for 7 years, but paid through the CSA who were able to trace them via HMRC or something. The PWC might not have a clue where or how to contact the NRP in order to try and make a private arrangement, and CSA won't be allowed to give details due to data protection. It's not impossible.

I agree what you're saying about NRPs who are compliant - my husband is one of them and the CSA was used against him as a weapon. However, I am also a PWC with an very non-compliant ex husband and there is no hope in hell of him being able to stick to a private arrangement. He wouldn't sign anything in writing in relation to maintenance as he avoids it at all costs through the CSA, nevermind at my request.