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

Sidekick_2

JamesP1976 wrote: »

The assessment was correct according to the CSAs own opinion of my circumstances. However, I was able to show evidence to the contrary, but the CSA disregarded it knowing it would cause, or expose me to the risk of a financial loss. That commits an offence. When questioned why they disregarded the evidence, they denied ever receiving it so I played the telephone call on my laptop to the investigation which confirmed acknowledgemrnt of the said evidence. That revealed a further offence had been committed.

Well done, for catching them with their trousers down.:beer:

You may be at the time to appeal the decision, but you can ask for a review to correct an error at any time or when you become aware of it. If they refuse to review you may appeal the decision, which means you will have full appeal rights.

Thank you, didnt know that. I dont think I have ever been allowed council tax as a rebate against CSA. I'll go back through the paperwork and see if any more refunds are due. Its all disclosed on the MEFs. I assumed it didnt count.

This could be one of the errors you could ask them to review.

So why does the CSA do it?

I suggest you look at the human rights act.;)

Thank you for taking the time to reply to my post, its much appreciated.:beer:

No problem:)

JamesP1976

Marisco wrote: »

CSA get it wrong umpteen times, IMO the whole lot should be scrapped, and drawing board brought in!!

Thanks for your support, that makes a nice change.

I read Maria Millers report from from her consultation and I really hope she does follow through her consideration to link maintenance with contact. It aligns CSA policy with the rest of the EU.

gillypkk

regardless of how much better or worse off you may be, you fathered those children and you have a responsibility to pay for them.

get out there and work to look after your kids !!!!!!!!

Marisco

Fair play gill, why don't people say that to single SAHM's? I doubt if a single mum came on here saying it's more financially viable for her to stay at home and not work, you'd say the same to her. I always try and see both sides, and as I've said, if he is doing it purely to avoid CSA then that is wrong. But if it's financially more viable for the gf to work and him to be a SAHD, who can blame anyone?

If child care is going to be so expensive that it's not worth both working, then it makes sense for one to stay at home. And if the CSA is going to take that much off him, that they cannot afford to live, then it makes more financial sense for the gf to go to work IYSWIM. PWC's get all sorts of benefits, NRP's don't, even though they are expected to financially support them as well. Even a NPR's CTC/WTC are included as income, that is not right either, especially if it's for the child of the family, it's taking from the "second" family, to give to the first!!

If an NRP is expected to financially support his kids (and he should) then he has to be allowed, at the very least, to keep all the benefits he gets. Or a PWC should have some of her benefits docked if she receives CM. Fairs fair

Oldernotwiser

Marisco wrote: »

Fair play gill, why don't people say that to single SAHM's? I doubt if a single mum came on here saying it's more financially viable for her to stay at home and not work, you'd say the same to her.

Don't you think that the SAHM would also get a lot of flak if she weren't supporting the children from a previous relationship? You have to include both sides of the situation, surely?

Marisco

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Don't you think that the SAHM would also get a lot of flak if she weren't supporting the children from a previous relationship? You have to include both sides of the situation, surely?

Rightly or wrongly the way I look at it is, if you are a single mum you get a lot of benefits/help. Yes, they might have to go without pony lessons etc, but they won't be starving and homeless. They get to keep all their benefits and CSA! However, an NRP who cannot afford to pay the rate the CSA says - especially on CSA 1 - doesn't count. The CSA couldn't care less whether the NRP can afford it and live, or not!!

This is were they fall flat on their faces! It has to be fair on everyone, not just one sided. (I'm not talking deadbeats, they are beyond the pale!!) But your normal NRP, who is trying to do their best. They get no help, benefit wise, in fact they have their benefit included as income!! The fact that they are getting WTC at all should tell you that they are not on good money. There has to be a way that it's fairer to everyone, at the min the CSA satisfies no one!!

gillypkk

but this guy has clearly stated he does not pay mortgage or rent as he cleared his mortgage a few years ago and his outgoings are minimal and working will not make him out of pocket even after paying the CSA so it seems the only reason he is not working IS to avoid paying for the children him and his ex decided to bring into this world together.

Oldernotwiser

Marisco wrote: »

Rightly or wrongly the way I look at it is, if you are a single mum you get a lot of benefits/help. Yes, they might have to go without pony lessons etc, but they won't be starving and homeless. They get to keep all their benefits and CSA! However, an NRP who cannot afford to pay the rate the CSA says - especially on CSA 1 - doesn't count. The CSA couldn't care less whether the NRP can afford it and live, or not!!

This is were they fall flat on their faces! It has to be fair on everyone, not just one sided. (I'm not talking deadbeats, they are beyond the pale!!) But your normal NRP, who is trying to do their best. They get no help, benefit wise, in fact they have their benefit included as income!! The fact that they are getting WTC at all should tell you that they are not on good money. There has to be a way that it's fairer to everyone, at the min the CSA satisfies no one!!

I think you've misunderstood me and also assumed that all NRPs are male and all PWCs are female.

The point I was making was that if the OP was female, she would still be getting a lot of flak for not supporting her older children who didn't live with her, regardless of the fact that it may be more socially acceptable for the mother to be the SAHP.

FBaby

SAHM get benefits and if they were not spending these benefits on her children she would get a lot of flak. The issue of SAHM being able to be on benefits is another subject.

I know it is an ethical question, but I just can't understand what a NRP gains from going on a such a cuisade not to pay towards children from previous relationship. Ok, so you are better off financially and you have more to give to your new family. Or maybe it isn't even about the gain finances, but about the satisfaction of making the ex's life difficult, but in the end, aren't you the biggest loser, because whatever the action of the PWC against you, you are giving them all the reasons not to want to have anything to do with you.

Your children don't stop to be so at 18 when you are not financially liable for them any longer. By chosing not to contribute towards them and contributing in making things awkward, you are more or less signing any good relationship with your eldest children. Is that worth it compared to giving up, paying every month, even if it is a bit more than what you believe you should, if with this action, you had the chance to rebuild a relationship with your children, maybe not now, but when they become adults and are able to make their own judgements? Surely, in all this, you are the one risking to lose the most?

JamesP1976

gillypkk wrote: »

but this guy has clearly stated he does not pay mortgage or rent as he cleared his mortgage a few years ago and his outgoings are minimal and working will not make him out of pocket even after paying the CSA.

I came here out of good faith, to look for a resolve, but you think its best I work for almost nothing.

You are playing a moral ground, and there is nothing morally right when a parent monetises children under a deluded belief she can increase her income by depriving them of their father.

Let get this straight, under my current circumstances I will not be going to back to work. I gont give a toss what you and these hens think. The CSA has to put everything back what they wrongfully took.

If the hens on this forum and the CSA think its clever to cheat an NRP of his lawful earnings then think again. For the most part, the are not cheating the NRP at all, they are damaging the economy, they deprive children of income, they are screwing themselves. It only encourages NRPs to go elsewhere for income, the sort that is tax free and impossible to prove. I didnt chose that route, i came here for help, and just listen yourself...