Fruadulent claim!!!

DX2

Marisco wrote: »

It seems to me, the best thing to do to stop all the shenanigans is to put everyone on CSA 2. It's seems a much fairer system than CSA 1.

Not point in that anymore since they are putting everyone onto CSA3 eventually.

kelloggs36

And it won't make everybody happy - some people's payments would increase!

DX2

kelloggs36 wrote: »

And it won't make everybody happy - some people's payments would increase!

Thing is no matter how hard you try you can't please every single person who is using this crap organisation.

kelloggs36

Exactly but to make it fair is the main point - to allow there to be a way to ensure that fraud doesn't happen must still be an option.

Marisco

I agree, it will never be totally fair, but CSA 2 seems to be much better than the complicated CSA 1. I must say though, I do think that an NRP's bills should be taken into account, not extras, but things like rent/mortgage, gas, leccie, water and council tax. Everyone has to pay these, so it seems ridiculous to take that much off an NRP, that they are struggling to pay the bills. Things like CC, loans payments etc should be disregarded, as they are not essential. Also if arrears accrue, which are not the fault of the NRP, then he should be allowed to pay back at a rate he can afford, to take nearly half of someones' wage is ridiculous!!!

kelloggs36

So you actually think that CS1 is fairer then, as that took mortgages into account and that is why it was so complicated!

infant2801

Marisco wrote: »

Can I have the bit in bold, in English please????? As for benefits, that is what people are entitled to, so they should claim it! As for not wanting to claim, do they seriously expect the ex to pay all the bills etc for them, get CM AND pay his own bills as well???? That is exactly what my oh's ex expected, and got a ruddy shock when it wasn't forthcoming:D

Three generations of one family nuturing the word 'entitled', do you really want me to explain further?

infant2801

DX2 wrote: »

He will call you a racist for that remark.

Oh come on my deeear, I never called you a racist....just simply asked you a question "Your not being a ittle bit racist are you."

Please forgive me if that's what you thought I was insinuating about you.

I know that racism would just not enter your educated mind.;)

Marisco

No I don't, because a partners income is not taken into account on 2. I know people keep saying it's not taken into account on 1, but it is! It's taken into account insofar as the NRPP is assumed to pay half the bills, therefore the NRP will be deemed to have more disposable income for the CSA to get their hands on. It's much fairer doing it by a % of the NRP's income, and not taking a NRPP's into the equation.

When my oh was on CSA 1, I wasn't working at the time, so they could only use his income, I asked them at the time, if I was working would they take that into account, and they said yes, but went on to the bit about protected income etc. But the bottom line is, if I was working he would have had to pay more, as I would be assumed to be paying half of household bills, leaving more disposable money.

CSA 1 only took into account some housing and half of pension contributions (I am going back a bit mind, must be 15/16 years ago now!!!) I think they should take all bills into account (those that have to be paid that is) I'm not surprised many are trying to get off CSA 1 to CSA 2!!

Marisco

infant2801 wrote: »

Three generations of one family nuturing the word 'entitled', do you really want me to explain further?

:rotfl::rotfl: That's so laughable, it's not even worth answering! The word "workaholic" is tailor made for my family!!:rotfl: