The CSA keeps badgering me to go back to work, but work doesnt pay, suggestions pleas

Orville

erdd2 wrote: »

One poster mentioned linking maintenance payments to contact......absolutely absurd, this paying to see your children view is one of the most damaging and ridiculous concepts between NRPs and PWC.

Whatever the gender, reason for split....paying for contact is a ridiculous concept!

I think you have misunderstood. It's not about paying for contact, it's about being expected to pay for your part of the childrens upkeep, but in return you should be able to have contact with your children. Not too much to ask is it?.

Orville

gillypkk wrote: »

regardless of whether the NRP sees the child they still need a roof over their head, food in their bellies and clothes on their backs.

as someone else said "children are not pay-per-view"

yes there should be consequences to the PWC witholding contact without good reason but not stopping payments from the NRP for support.

what if the PWC cannot afford the rent if its stopped? or the new trainers the child needs for PE? punnishing the kids for the parents behaviour.

Then they shouldn't stop the contact should they?. Quite obvious really....

gillypkk

Transformer wrote: »

I did notice his request to come back was about same time as csa and benefits/social had been out to visit me!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Coincidence perhaps

funny that one eh?

my ex wanted to have a "normal relationship" with me coz at the end of the day "you are still my wife" when we had been separated for 2 years meaning i can pursue a divorce and he cannot object. hmmm funny that one eh?

anguk

Marisco wrote: »

I think we're talking of PWC's who stop NRP's just out of sheer bloody mindedness. There are many NRP that don't get to see their kids, just because the NRP has left them. I'm not meaning those who were abusive or violent here, that's understandable, but normal bods, who left the PWC, and she* is bitter about it, wants to hurt him and uses the kids for that end! They are lower than a snakes belly, those are the ones whose justifications for that type of behaviour I'd like to hear from!!!:mad:

* I use "she" as the majority of PWC's are women, but I make no distinction between the sexes, both are equally as despicable if they use the kids as weapons.

I agree with you there, it is totally wrong for a PWC to use their children as pawns in a game with the NRP. And I also agree that there are many PWC who are bitter and do that just to get back at their ex.

But I also think that NRPs who refuse to pay maintenance are lower than a snake's belly too.

All this nastiness and game playing between the PWC and NRP achieves nothing and it's the poor children who suffer.

In my opinion if you have kids you are responsible for their upbringing and wellbeing. If you're the PWC this includes allowing them to have as normal relationship as possible with their NRP and if you're the NRP this includes paying maintenance toward their upkeep.

Orville

Marisco wrote: »

I think we're talking of PWC's who stop NRP's just out of sheer bloody mindedness. There are many NRP that don't get to see their kids, just because the NRP has left them. I'm not meaning those who were abusive or violent here, that's understandable, but normal bods, who left the PWC, and she* is bitter about it, wants to hurt him and uses the kids for that end! They are lower than a snakes belly, those are the ones whose justifications for that type of behaviour I'd like to hear from!!!:mad:

* I use "she" as the majority of PWC's are women, but I make no distinction between the sexes, both are equally as despicable if they use the kids as weapons.

Totally agree with that statement....

Orville

Transformer wrote: »

but it only takes one argument to be back to square one as some people should not be together as much as they may think they love each other at the time.;)

I agree with that, i know where your coming from there .

gillypkk

anguk wrote: »

In my opinion if you have kids you are responsible for their upbringing and wellbeing. If you're the PWC this includes allowing them to have as normal relationship as possible with their NRP and if you're the NRP this includes paying maintenance toward their upkeep.

exactly. this is what the OP seems to be forgetting.

anguk

gillypkk wrote: »

simply playing evils advocate here but

what if the PWC has said NRP isnt allowed to see the kids simply to find out if he really is bothered to see them to see if he will put in the effort and not simply say "sorry i cant see them this week something else has come up" and disappoint the kids and it happens that he hasnt been bothered to put in the effort by looking into enforcing the contact order?

whats to say the minute she got the solicitors letter saying he is seeking a court date to discuss the reason contact was witheld she wasnt planning on reinstating it?

I don't think a PWC should ever say that the NRP can't see the children (unless of course in cases of violence or the children were at risk). But I think that there should be a clear understanding, maybe even a contract, that says when and for how long the NRP has access. If the NRP then chooses not to see the kids because they can't be bothered then they'll have no comeback in court.

It shouldn't really be up to the PWC when the NRP can see the kids, just as the NRP shouldn't just see the kids when they can be bothered. In an ideal grown-up world both parents should be able to come up with an arrangement that benefits and causes least disruption to their children.

Blue_Elephant

Haven't read the whole thread, but I wondered.

Travel to work costs are only allowed if you travel over 150 miles per week to travel to and from work. These are not allowed, however if your employer pays your travel expenses. I gathered you were a driver and as such your employer is likely to award you expenses? Such expenses are not included in your net income if they are there as a means for you to do your job.

On the other hand, say you travel 200 miles a week to/from work. They don't allow for the first 150, they only allow for anything over that. At 10pence per mile. So 50 miles at 10p will mean £5.00 added to your protected income.

Instead of asking PWC to close case completely, why not ask her to close case, wait 13 weeks and 1 day, and then reapply for child maintenance?

This will mean you will be assessed under CS2, which only takes into account your net income (not you partners, or housing costs or TTW or council tax etc), the fact you have a child in your household and the qualifying child.

Use the calculator on the CSA website to work it out. They will take 15% off your net income for the child in your household, then if you only have 1 child with PWC it will be 15% of what's left.

That way you can still be paying for your child, under the newer, simplified system.

PreludeForTimeFeelers

Marisco wrote: »

I might be wrong here, but it sounds as if op is on CSA 1. If so, then I can understand his anger. It has to be the most unfair system going. Why the hell they can't put everyone on CSA 2 is beyond me, it's a much fairer system all round, and everyone knows where they are. It's a straight % of wages. CSA 1 has to be the most convoluted system going, it's totally incomprehensible.

They say that a NRPP's wages are not taken into account, well they are!! Because a NRPP is deemed to pay half of housing etc, it leaves the NRP with more disposable income for them to get their mitts on!!!

The OP wouldnt have a nil assessment if this case was on new rules, as the CTC that him and his partner get would be used.