Finally my MP writes back about the CSA

krashovr10ad

++

Not sure how that is, you stated in your post you live above the benefit line by £30 plus an extra 15%

Actually what I meant to say was that calculation is supposed to be our protected income figure to ensure that I can pay the full amount of maintenance required...

Well - it's all relative but when she lived alone with her daugther she was entitled to WTC, CTC, Housing Benefit, Council Tax relief, free prescriptions and so on...

Using entitledto.co.uk that would have given her an (approx) effective income of £243 for a 16 hour week...

We now work 56 hours bewteen us for £253 after Tax, NI and the CSA - we no longer qualify for WTC and the CTC doesn't come close to covering the the child care costs. I haven't included the £10-ish a week arrears that the CSA is requesting - so that makes us even!

Looking purely at the figures I think you have to agree that she was better off living alone - wouldn't you?

++

Rebekka_2

krashovr10ad wrote:

++
Looking purely at the figures I think you have to agree that she was better off living alone - wouldn't you?++

I dont wish to sound harsh here, but you could also say she would have been better off meeting someone who had not got a child he had to support, your first priority should have been to provide for the child you had fathered, yet it seems to be about you, your new partner and her child, its no wonder people get harsh responses when you post like you do

krashovr10ad

++

but you could also say she would have been better off meeting someone who had not got a child he had to support

Yes - indeed you could. Indeed she's said as much herself but it's a bit late in the day for that. We could have also carried living as two seperate households but we didn't want that either.

Just because I'm an NRP - does that mean I should spend my life alone..? Being the PWC didn't stop my ex-partner getting married (and divorced) or having more children...

Whilst contributing to the welfare of my son is important and it's not contributing that I complain about - it the inflexibility/injustice of the system that I'm having a go at and the inequality of assessment methods (old, new and newer to come). After all why should the CTC from my partners daughter be figured into the income of my household..?

your first priority should have been to provide for the child you had fathered

What would you like me to say - that I wish I'd never fathered a child so that my life would be easier..? I'm not even going to go down that road. As for priorities - I do provide for my son (unlike a lot of NRPs - it would seem). Via the CSA I provide 27% of my earnings each month - I know people out there who live with their children and don't provide anything like that.

It's a bit late for consulting Mystic Meg about how my relationship with his mother was going to turn out - although I could show you the scars if you like..??

As for harsh..? Overall, most comments have been pretty fair considering some of the things that I've put on here and I can usually see the authors point of view. Harsh comments were plentiful though in a CSA review document I found on the web where they'd interviewed some PWCs - I think they stopped short of castration and contravening an NRPs Human Rights but only just (please note that was the most extreme example - most were a bit more sensible)...

++

kelloggs36

The only trouble is that there will be losers regardless so it can never be a perfect system. Both parents are the first people who have responsibility to maintain a child as it would be if they were living together. Only when this is not possible does the state step in and provide an alternative (income support or JSA) or a top up. In the event that the parents split usually the PWC and child suffer most as they have to rely on benefits much of the time for their survival - this comes from the state. The state needs to offset some of this by asking the NRP to contribute towards the upkeep of his/her child as it would have been had they still been together. I have never heard an NRP complaining about the fact that the PWC and child are left to live on income support but I have heard many complain that their money doesn't benefit the child directly as it is taken by the state. it could be worse - the state could refuse to support any child or parent who has another parent whom they should rely on as if they were together. It is not up to other parents to support parents and children of those who split up - but we do via taxes etc, but the responsibility is the parents'. Many NRPs complain that when the PWC meets another man/woman and they are better off than they now are due to the maintenance they pay. However, this is because they got lucky and are partially supported by somebody who is not a parent of the child. Should it be now their responsibility to maintain that child? In reality, it is, but again, the other parent should be providing support for his/her child. If they meet somebody else, they already have the responsibility of a child and should take this into consideration when making decisions about their lives. The PWC does all the time as they have the child living with them and always have that responsibility which is not just financial.

It is good that many NRPs wish to continue to maintain their children, but they must remember that it takes two to make a child and that is a lifetime decision (especially for those who wish to forget that they had children in the first place and move on - the PWC can't!) However, as it is their decision they must live with the rules as they are. As I said at the beginning, no system can possibly please everybody. It isn't perfect, but if the NRP met a rich person, the CSA would not be asking to take chunks of money direct from their partner to pay for the child of the NRP, but the PWC's new partner already contributes indirectly and has no choice.

Before anybody says that under the old rules the NRP's partner did pay, if you understand how it works, that is not the case.

Maybe I am biased as my ex owes me over 25k and is extremely non-compliant, but having worked there, I have seen both sides, and believe me, all are losers! (I meant in real terms, not that the people are losers!!!!)

kelloggs36

Oh, and all multiple cases should get transferred to the new system, regardless of if it is the PWC or NRP who has an existing old case and then a new case. HOWEVER there are some rare circumstances (and at present, I don't know what they are) that result in both running side by side. I shall try to find out more........

krashovr10ad

++

I have seen both sides, and believe me, all are losers!

Much more sensible and accurate than anything I've written today.

I'd like to blame a very dull Friday afternoon for my ramblings today - too much time and access to the Internet can be a bad thing...

++

kelloggs36

You're all right mate!!!!

Rebekka_2

kelloggs36 wrote:

Oh, and all multiple cases should get transferred to the new system, regardless of if it is the PWC or NRP who has an existing old case and then a new case. HOWEVER there are some rare circumstances (and at present, I don't know what they are) that result in both running side by side. I shall try to find out more........

Rare:rotfl: yeah so rare no-one knows about them

krashovr10ad

++

Oh, and all multiple cases should get transferred to the new system, regardless of if it is the PWC or NRP who has an existing old case and then a new case. HOWEVER there are some rare circumstances (and at present, I don't know what they are) that result in both running side by side.

Thanks for that - if I could be really cheeky and ask does your source know if this is actually written down anywhere in a CSA document that I can access..?

Just as an aside - I see in the new this morning that the CSA could scrap millions as they implement the new scheme...

A final injustice to all those 'encouraged' to use the CSA and who've never seen a penny..??
++

kelloggs36

My source told me that this is not the case as they are to set up a section just for the arrears cases.