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

anguk

I don't know much about CSA and thankfully have never had any involvement with them but reading through the many threads about them on here makes me wonder why there's two different types?

From what I can gather CSA2 is much simpler, clearer and fair so why is the old CSA1 still in place, why haven't they scrapped that and migrated everyone onto CSA2?

gillypkk

anguk wrote: »

I don't know much about CSA and thankfully have never had any involvement with them but reading through the many threads about them on here makes me wonder why there's two different types?

From what I can gather CSA2 is much simpler, clearer and fair so why is the old CSA1 still in place, why haven't they scrapped that and migrated everyone onto CSA2?

coz thats too simple and logical!

Blue_Elephant

anguk wrote: »

I don't know much about CSA and thankfully have never had any involvement with them but reading through the many threads about them on here makes me wonder why there's two different types?

From what I can gather CSA2 is much simpler, clearer and fair so why is the old CSA1 still in place, why haven't they scrapped that and migrated everyone onto CSA2?

Because in 2003 when the new system started it would have been too complex and time consuming and used up too many man hours(and tax payers money) to change them all over, so they were changed over on a system called reactive migration, which simply put, means that a case will only get moved over if one of the principles (NRP or PWC) becomes an NRP or a PWC in a new case (i.e. has a new rules CS case with someone else, as they can't have one on CS1 and another on CS2.

The only other way for a case to "change over" is for the case to be closed at PWC request, then reopened at least 13 weeks and 1 day after closure, as it would then count as a brand new case.

JamesP1976

PreludeForTimeFeelers wrote: »

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.

I dont get CTC, my partner does, and that is for our son that lives with us.

My ex doesnt work, by choice, why would she get my partners CTC? (My understanding of it CTC only available for those who work).

Is partners income used for CM on CS2?

PreludeForTimeFeelers

JamesP1976 wrote: »

I dont get CTC, my partner does, and that is for our son that lives with us.

My ex doesnt work, by choice, why would she get my partners CTC? (My understanding of it CTC only available for those who work).

Is partners income used for CM on CS2?

If you live with your partner then tax credits are awarded to a household jointly. Your partner is the primary earner, which means wtc wouldn't be used, however you would be liable to pay a portion of the CTC.

DX2

JamesP1976 wrote: »

My ex doesnt work, by choice, why would she get my partners CTC? (My understanding of it CTC only available for those who work).

You understand incorrectly, quiet a lot of that it seems regarding tax credits.

JamesP1976

anguk wrote: »

Ah I see, thanks.

So a PWC would get the maintenance stopped if they obstructed contact between the kids & the NRP?

And NRPs who didn't pay wouldn't be allowed to see their kids?

I wonder what would happen in the OP's case? His ex is obstructing contact so she wouldn't get maintenance but the OP isn't paying any maintenance so he wouldn't be entitled to contact anyway? It's hurting my brain trying to work it out! :rotfl:

Part of me thinks maintenance linked contact is fair for the parents but another part of me thinks this could be unfair on the children. It seems to be more about parent's rights than the children's rights.

are you looking at the Maria Miller report on Strengtheneing Families etc?

Looking at pages 35 onwards, it mentions a consideration to link contact and maintenance. As I understand it, it doesnt change NRP liabilities unless the PWC chooses to be a single parent.

It will be the same for those who deliberately make themselves homeless or jobless to avail themselves to support.

To put it another way, NRP has a statutory liability, unless he can show that contact has been deliberately blocked by the claimant parent. Maria Miller does mention about assurances NRPs who are excluded due to violence towards children or PWCs will remain liable for child support. The rules are proposed to protect NRPs against PWC who deliberately deprive the children of the other parent regardles whether the motive is financial or not.

Holland and Belgium for example have a similar position, but they look at linked contact and maintenance as such if the PWCs position as a single parent is "self inflicted" then she cannot claim anything from either the state or the other parent. Provided the other parent is not convicted of violence, custody of the children passes to the other parent on application of a claim for maintenance or other single parent benefits.

JamesP1976

DX2 wrote: »

You understand incorrectly, quiet a lot of that it seems regarding tax credits.

Can you explain more?

Im not sure how someone elses tax credits would be used to pay someone elses maintenance liability.

JamesP1976

PreludeForTimeFeelers wrote: »

If you live with your partner then tax credits are awarded to a household jointly. Your partner is the primary earner, which means wtc wouldn't be used, however you would be liable to pay a portion of the CTC.

Ive had a look at the HMRC letter, its not addressed to me, and the award is made in favour of my parters sole name.

Why would I need to put it on a MEF as my income when it is not?

Its £3099.86 for the year.

DX2

JamesP1976 wrote: »

Can you explain more?

Im not sure how someone elses tax credits would be used to pay someone elses maintenance liability.

What do you need explaining? Anyone with children whether they work or don't get CTC. Those who don't work get more, those on low income get some and those on highish incomes get about a tenner a week.

Tax credits are jointly applied for you and your wife/partner (sorry not sure what she is it's been a long thread!) tax credits are classed as income AFAIK.