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

Transformer

g-sharp_major wrote: »

That is not how the OP comes accross, he was cheated unlawfully and I commend him for his ability to get the government ombudsman to sort it out.

Clearly the OP wants whats best for his children, he doesnt give a toss about the PWC, why should he? she brought this on all by herself.

'she brought this on all by herself'.

You know how many times in nasty relationships one party says that, especially when a fist has just smacked someone in the gob!!!!!!!!

How do you know in this situations reading from childish op that the pwc brought it all on by herself. Bet shes glad to be rid of him.:rotfl:

anguk

JamesP1976 wrote: »

But I'll have the paperwork to prove I did everything to give them the best chance in life.

Except paying maintenance to help financially support them. The judge will take this into account too.

g-sharp_major wrote: »

That is not how the OP comes accross, he was cheated unlawfully and I commend him for his ability to get the government ombudsman to sort it out.

Clearly the OP wants whats best for his children, he doesnt give a toss about the PWC, why should he? she brought this on all by herself.

Yes the CSA "cheated" him and he's won the case against them but time to move on from that now, if he's overpaid in the past hopefully he will get that money back but it's what the kids need now that's important.

If, for example, mistakes were made by your local authority and you paid too much council tax in the past you can't turn round now and say you're not going to pay council tax because you were cheated in the past. It still has to be paid, just like you still have to support your kids now even if you overpaid in the past.

And I don't see how the PWC brought this on herself? How? By involving the CSA? By asking the father of the children to help financially support them? The ex opened a claim with the CSA for maintenance for the children, it was the CSA who mucked it up.

Transformer

HIS ANXE is she dared to involve the csa!!!!!!!!!

In his opinion of course.

gillypkk

Marisco wrote: »

The problem seems to be though, that she thinks she'll get more money off CSA 1, and won't migrate to CSA 2!!! Maybe if James promises to get a job and pay his dues if she goes to CSA 2, he might get somewhere. As it is, he refuses to work and she gets nowt!! Surely even the most hard faced PWC, can see CSA 2 is a better deal?

but she shouldnt have to do any of this if he just worked like any decent father would! all his problems would go away if he just worked! no phone calls off the CSA, the arrears and supposed money owed to him would be deducted off what he is paying and most importantly his kids will know he cares about their welfare by providing for them and wont come at him with flaming pitchforks when they are older for "abandoning" them and never paying for them.

Transformer

anguk wrote: »

Except paying maintenance to help financially support them. The judge will take this into account too.


Yes the CSA "cheated" him and he's won the case against them but time to move on from that now, if he's overpaid in the past hopefully he will get that money back but it's what the kids need now that's important.

If, for example, mistakes were made by your local authority and you paid too much council tax in the past you can't turn round now and say you're not going to pay council tax because you were cheated in the past. It still has to be paid, just like you still have to support your kids now even if you overpaid in the past.

And I don't see how the PWC brought this on herself? How? By involving the CSA? By asking the father of the children to help financially support them? The ex opened a claim with the CSA for maintenance for the children, it was the CSA who mucked it up.

Hear hear:T

Transformer

Dear council,

I am refusing to pay for my council tax as you have ofended me with your mistakes. You have dared to ask for this years tax after what happened prior, hence I feel I should get freebies and the maintenance of my bins done for free till I have exhausted all routes to get out of paying you!!!!!!

............

Your bins would soon stink and you would have the bailiffs at the door

clearingout

anguk wrote: »

And I don't see how the PWC brought this on herself? How? By involving the CSA? By asking the father of the children to help financially support them? The ex opened a claim with the CSA for maintenance for the children, it was the CSA who mucked it up.

This is a good point. Cases are opened with the CSA for many reasons, but mainly, I suspect, because the PWC has been unable to come to an agreement with the NRP. I accept many PWC consider they will be better off under the CSA when in fact that isn't the case, leading to NRPs shouting 'greedy moo'. I also accept it must be pretty crap to have money 'taken' at source as well as potentially embaressing in some work environments.

But ultimately, once a case is open, the issue of child maintenance is out of the hands of both PWC and NRP and both are very much at the CSA's mercy in terms of them getting it right. Probably, the majority of cases are 100% correct but when you frequent forums such as these, it can feel that only mistakes are made and nothing is ever correct. But that is neither the fault of the NRP or the PWC (if they have provided honest information) and neither side 'deserves' what happens. And neither do the children deserve to go without - whether that's without when living with the PWC or without when spending time with the NRP 'cos they are forking out a small fortune in maintenance.

System doesn't work. I think that's something we can all agree on?!

Marisco

gillypkk wrote: »

but she shouldnt have to do any of this if he just worked like any decent father would! all his problems would go away if he just worked! no phone calls off the CSA, the arrears and supposed money owed to him would be deducted off what he is paying and most importantly his kids will know he cares about their welfare by providing for them and wont come at him with flaming pitchforks when they are older for "abandoning" them and never paying for them.

I see what you're saying gilly, but I can say from experience (mid 90's) that CSA 1 is a killer!!! I have utmost sympathy for anyone on it. It almost caused us to be homeless, and oh was on the verge of quitting work, until we got the MP involved!! I just wish CSA 2 had been around then!!! I have to say, that we'd have probably done the same until oh's ex would agree to go on CSA 2, not through choice, but necessity to survive!!! It was a dreadful time, and I wouldn't wish it on anyone - and to make it worse oh was a compliant "client", but their ruthlessness would put the !!!!! to shame!!!!:mad:

gillypkk

Transformer wrote: »

Dear council,

I am refusing to pay for my council tax as you have ofended me with your mistakes. You have dared to ask for this years tax after what happened prior, hence I feel I should get freebies and the maintenance of my bins done for free till I have exhausted all routes to get out of paying you!!!!!!

............

Your bins would soon stink and you would have the bailiffs at the door

not the only thing that stinks though is it?

unfortunately we cannot get the OPs IP address to report hjim for his benefit fraud :rotfl:

anguk

Marisco wrote: »

The problem seems to be though, that she thinks she'll get more money off CSA 1, and won't migrate to CSA 2!!! Maybe if James promises to get a job and pay his dues if she goes to CSA 2, he might get somewhere. As it is, he refuses to work and she gets nowt!! Surely even the most hard faced PWC, can see CSA 2 is a better deal?

But do we know she wouldn't migrate? The OP has said that knowing her he doesn't think she will but it doesn't seem like he's actually asked her I don't think. The claim will be under CSA1 because that's what there was when they split so it's continued on that. The PWC might not even know that she could end the claim, wait a few weeks and reclaim under CSA2.