his wedding, my son is barely invited.

13Kent

FatVonD wrote: »

I don't think they do take the new spouse's earnings into consideration (we've managed to avoid getting CSA involved) but that is what Princess Dreamer was advocating!

They don't on the new system, it is just purely based on the NRP's earnings - which would suit us fine, but for older CSA cases the household income of the NRP is taken for the calculation.

3v3

Zoetoes wrote: »

Of course, it's different, I never disputed that...

Then your point is proven at all!

Zoetoes wrote: »

... Once a month to see your child is ridiculous without good reason (job, army etc etc), he should have made more effort.

:huh:

LolaLemon wrote: »

.... He has son 3-7pm every Friday.

Zoetoes

We don't have the CSA involved, I know really he would have to pay more but we have a set amount and then on occassions such as a cricket course a couple of weeks ago I asked him for half the course cost, so it's not too bad.

There are times when he infuriates me with his tightness though! But compared to some not even paying CS my situation is good.

13Kent

13Kent wrote: »

They don't on the new system, it is just purely based on the NRP's earnings - which would suit us fine, but for older CSA cases the household income of the NRP is taken for the calculation.

...oh and before you ask we are not allowed to be transferred onto the new system - we've explored that avenue with our MP's involvement. So it's like going into a shop for a pint of milk and being told you have to pay £3 for it because you came into the shop first, but the person coming in after you only has to pay £1.50 because they came in later and so get a different deal.

Zoetoes

3v3 wrote: »

Then you're point is proven at all!


:huh:

I was talking about favouriting one child over another, I never said the circumstances weren't different for each.

I had read somewhere that he sees him once a month, perhaps that was referring to an extra visit that he was offered and refused.

FatVonD

13Kent wrote: »

They don't on the new system, it is just purely based on the NRP's earnings - which would suit us fine, but for older CSA cases the household income of the NRP is taken for the calculation.

I think I understand, so you are paying more because your case was assessed earlier?

FatVonD

13Kent wrote: »

...oh and before you ask we are not allowed to be transferred onto the new system - we've explored that avenue with our MP's involvement. So it's like going into a shop for a pint of milk and being told you have to pay £3 for it because you came into the shop first, but the person coming in after you only has to pay £1.50 because they came in later and so get a different deal.

Aha, yes, I can see the unfairness in that

Zoetoes

Why is there not just one system?? Surely they are making more work for themselves as well as it being unfair?

gillypkk

13Kent wrote: »

As he discovered only too late paying money into the PWC's bank does not prove you have paid maintenance - unless money is specifically designated and marked as "maintainance for child x and y" they the CSA don't count it as such and the onus is on the NRP to prove that the money was paid for that purpose.

In our case they took the PWC's word for it.

i got told the opposite. he paid money to me to pay for the car but nothing for me to raise the kids off of yet coz he had paid money to me the CSA took that as maintenance so i got royally screwed over missing out on months of payments and struggling to put food on the table while waiting for my benefits to be sorted out and him living the high life paying absoloutly zero towards me or my kids!

Zoetoes

Oh I didn't realise it was on the old system, I just rang the ex and said 'if you move in with someone can you make sure she's a good earner'.

Sorry I know it's not funny to those of you in this situation, I was just winding the ex up.