CSA 3 New System

clearingout

Maybe we'll see improvements in the service as we're paying for it?!

kevin137

Does this mean if one parent chooses not to use it because he fears the charges are unfair then he can refuse...? Because if he can't then surely the charges being brought about will be unlawful as you cannot charge for a service you that was not asked for...!

I can see this being a major headache for the government and it ending up in European Courts where they will no doubt say that the charging is unlawful...

RedSky

kevin137 wrote: »

Does this mean if one parent chooses not to use it because he fears the charges are unfair then he can refuse...? Because if he can't then surely the charges being brought about will be unlawful as you cannot charge for a service you that was not asked for...!

Details of what is being proposed is all within the consultation paper - http://www.dwp.gov.uk/consultations/2011/strengthening-families.shtml

Only should you choose to use the statutory scheme i.e. if you cannot make your own agreement, will you be charged. Assuming you are referring to NRPs above, then "if a non-resident parent chooses to make a mutually agreed family-based arrangement they will pay no charges. Once the case is in the statutory scheme the non-resident parent can still avoid paying charges by paying maintenance through the maintenance direct option".

kevin137

So i could choose to pay myself, and my ex would say NO i want it to go through the CSA, and i would have to pay...?

Seems like an imposed fee on me and that i would have NO choice in if i pay it or not..!!!

I' not saying this is what will happen, s i am outside of the CSA now, but you see my point... People will have NO CHOICE because of choices made by there ex's. By the same reasoning, that they have no choice because the NRP didn't pay...

So what we have are a bunch of halfwits (most of them) deciding what we have to pay, ow much we are charged for having the privilege of paying it, payment for receiving it, and bad decisions and wrong assessments all the way through it... What is next, a charge for every letter they send or receive....!!!

Give the power back to the courts, and punish the people who truly won't pay and let the rest of us get on with our lives...!!! And maybe just maybe, then access can be arranged at the same time for those who truly want it for there children...!

RedSky

kevin137 wrote: »

So i could choose to pay myself, and my ex would say NO i want it to go through the CSA, and i would have to pay...?

As in you pay maintenance or pay charges? If the latter then no.

kevin137 wrote: »

Seems like an imposed fee on me and that i would have NO choice in if i pay it or not..!!!

Incorrect. Try reading the consultation paper, you might find the answers opposed to stressing over nothing.

kevin137 wrote: »

I' not saying this is what will happen, s i am outside of the CSA now, but you see my point... People will have NO CHOICE because of choices made by there ex's. By the same reasoning, that they have no choice because the NRP didn't pay...

So what we have are a bunch of halfwits (most of them) deciding what we have to pay, ow much we are charged for having the privilege of paying it, payment for receiving it, and bad decisions and wrong assessments all the way through it... What is next, a charge for every letter they send or receive....!!!

If either parent prefers to act like a halfwit and not work together to find an amicable solution, then the CSA halfwits will have to take over.

kevin137 wrote: »

What is next, a charge for every letter they send or receive....!!!

If you read chapter 2 paragraph 34 of the consultation paper then you won't have to speculate.

kevin137

It makes interesting reading, but lets be honest...!!! It will never work like that...

RedSky

Indeed, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. Perhaps charging the horse for not drinking might encourage it

ankspon

PreludeForTimeFeelers wrote: »

Because it isn't means-tested, the circumstances of the PWC don't reduce the fact that the NRP still has a financial liability for his child/children. If the PWC was totally destitute and living on the breadline then it wouldn't mean an NRP had to pay more, likewise a PWC who is financially better off than the NRP shouldn't lose out.

You have missed the point,if it is to save on benefits then a multi millionaire does not need child support.The difference is the claim was made out of pure spite and not from financial needs.

ford_prefect_3

clearingout wrote: »

Not to deny that men are indeed abused by women partners (sounds horrendous, jarhead), you should commit to memory the statistics on this issue: 2 women a week are murdered by a partner or ex partner in the UK. Not something we should make light of or indeed, be proud of.

Or quote because its a totally fabricated figure.

In the year it was first used a total of 38 women where unlawfully killed in the UK according to the ONS and that includes all forms of unlawful killing, not just in a domestic setting.

Whilst its 38 too many, the figure of 2 a week was a fabrication on the part of womens aid, its a figure the CPS no longer quote either after it was pointed out to them that it was false and that as they are the body dealing with the cases they should know better.

As for the CSA and the new "fee" structure its a disaster waiting to happen and will of course be loaded unfairly against the NRP when it is finalised.

RedSky

ford_prefect wrote: »

As for the CSA and the new "fee" structure its a disaster waiting to happen and will of course be loaded unfairly against the NRP when it is finalised.

Assuming the new scheme materialises as proposed, then as far as I can see any NRP under the CSA's realm only has to agree to pay by maintenance direct to not pay any additional fees. As the PWC has had to jump through a few more hoops to open an application with the CSA, NRPs should be in a marginally stronger position. How is that loaded against the NRP? If you know otherwise then please explain.