CSA 3 New System

speedster

ford_prefect wrote: »

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.

ssssshhhhhhh.

don't quote facts at the militant dungaree brigade on here. you'll get lynched and lumped in to "bad man" category on here..

forever in a lonely wasteground, banished to an eternity in the company of the few men who dare to post here!!

kevin137

RedSky wrote: »

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.

I think i agree, however, things are never this simple, and it seems this will only apply to NEW cases...!

And before you jump on me, what happens to old cases, clerical cases, and downright f**ked up cases that have arrears caused by the CSA...! Are the NRP going to be allowed to pay by direct payments, and who decides, if the PWC has the last say or the CSA has the last say, then they are forcing this system onto the NRP

Just a thought...

RedSky

kevin137 wrote: »

I think i agree, however, things are never this simple, and it seems this will only apply to NEW cases...!

The future statutory scheme is only for new cases initially, then open to the rest according to a predetermined order.

kevin137 wrote: »

And before you jump on me, what happens to old cases, clerical cases, and downright f**ked up cases that have arrears caused by the CSA...!

Unlike CSA1 to CSA2, cases will not be migrated across but closed and a new application required to open a future scheme case (after all else has failed and you were unable to make a private agreement, or "family arrangement" as they are now referred to).

I may have misinterpreted or misunderstood as this is only from the information I have read that is publicly available. Curiously if cases are closed then how will that apply to cases with arrears. I'm guessing this is why the steer was introduced and the CSA became more aggressive in clearing arrears to reduce the problem.

kevin137 wrote: »

Are the NRP going to be allowed to pay by direct payments, and who decides, if the PWC has the last say or the CSA has the last say, then they are forcing this system onto the NRP

My interpretation of the proposals is that both NRP and PWC will have the option to pay/receive by maintenance direct for CSA maintained cases. Should either refuse and want the CSA to collect/process payments then that person, and only the parent or parents who refused, will incur charges. So you could have a case where both parents incur charges or only one parent incurs charges.

But as I said, this is only my understanding of the proposals. We will only know for sure when, or if, it happens.

kevin137

Thanks for trying to clarify this, it doesn't directly affect me now as i am outside the CSA system, but knowing lots on it it is extremely concerning to know that they are gonna screw people even more than they currently do should you be forced to use the CSA...

I don't understand how they will implement the closing and reopening of cases and who the hell decides what the predetermined order will be, i am guessing it will be the ones that have no arrears 1st as they are easiest to manage, after that it becomes a lottery, and as mine "was" a clerical case, and we are still arguing assessments from 5 years ago, and i get a different figure of what i apparently "owe" every time i speak to them, it would make mine hell...! As i have said in other posts, i had an accountant go over my case, and he is sure they owe me in excess of £3000 they say i owe £4000+ and they have a LO against me...! But that said, and since moving on a permanent basis to Norway, having notified them in writing 4 times of a change of circumstances, i am yet to get a response and a NIL assessment...! And i send everything recorded, and by email, and by fax... And they have my current address as well. Yet the case remains open and they still get it wrong every time i speak to them...

clearingout

RedSky wrote: »

My interpretation of the proposals is that both NRP and PWC will have the option to pay/receive by maintenance direct for CSA maintained cases. Should either refuse and want the CSA to collect/process payments then that person, and only the parent or parents who refused, will incur charges. So you could have a case where both parents incur charges or only one parent incurs charges.

But as I said, this is only my understanding of the proposals. We will only know for sure when, or if, it happens.

That's not how I have read it. I don't see how the CSA can discriminate in this way. For example, my ex isn't going to pay maintenance until they stick him in prison (and probably not even then). But if asked, he would quite happily tell you, the CSA, and anyone else prepared to listen that he's more than happy to pay maintenance direct on a regular basis. Saying it and doing it, however are very different things! I have not read anything that suggests I would somehow be 'free' of fees if my ex were not to pay and I have had extensive 'discussion' with my MP on the issue. It is, however, a decent proposition and one I think many of us would welcome.

RedSky

kevin137 wrote: »

I don't understand how they will implement the closing and reopening of cases and who the hell decides what the predetermined order will be, i am guessing it will be the ones that have no arrears 1st as they are easiest to manage, after that it becomes a lottery

I'm sure I've mentioned it one or twice that you don't need to guess just read the consultation paper. Cases that cost the taxpayer the most have been proposed as priority (which are clerical cases as I vaguely remember they cost the taxpayer £900 a year to manually maintain) followed by the oldest to the newest.

Try chapter 3 paragraphs 12-15 to find out how they propose to close existing CSA cases.

RedSky

clearingout wrote: »

That's not how I have read it. I don't see how the CSA can discriminate in this way. For example, my ex isn't going to pay maintenance until they stick him in prison (and probably not even then). But if asked, he would quite happily tell you, the CSA, and anyone else prepared to listen that he's more than happy to pay maintenance direct on a regular basis. Saying it and doing it, however are very different things! I have not read anything that suggests I would somehow be 'free' of fees if my ex were not to pay and I have had extensive 'discussion' with my MP on the issue. It is, however, a decent proposition and one I think many of us would welcome.

Apart from the application fee, as far as I can see "A deduction will be applied to maintenance collected for the parent with care as a contribution to the ongoing costs to the State of collecting and enforcing the maintenance payments on their behalf". So if a PWC's contribution (fee) is a deduction from the maintenance collected, then should nothing be collected by the CSA then nothing can be deducted before nothing is passed to the PWC.

Whereas for NRPs, "payment by the non-resident parent for surcharges will be the result of their choices or non-compliance".

PreludeForTimeFeelers

davidhwdn wrote: »

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.

Because it's not to save on benefits, and hasn't been for a very long time.

Whether the claim was made out of pure spite or not, if he is their father then he should be contributing.

PreludeForTimeFeelers

With regards to cases with arrears, as far as I am aware there will be a 'push' to get as much of this outstanding debt cleared as possible before the case is closed. If that isn't possible, and the case is closed, to be opened as a new case on this future scheme, then the outstanding arrears balance will be carried over.

kevin137

PreludeForTimeFeelers wrote: »

With regards to cases with arrears, as far as I am aware there will be a 'push' to get as much of this outstanding debt cleared as possible before the case is closed. If that isn't possible, and the case is closed, to be opened as a new case on this future scheme, then the outstanding arrears balance will be carried over.

Thank you for a sensible answer.

Although i am a little worried how this will affect a lot of people who make reasonable payments into the arrears, there are plenty of horror stories about the CSA changing the payments made and attaching a DEO in order to force quicker payment of arrears...

My next question is how are these arrears that are in dispute going to be dealt with. Because historically the CSA is not very good at the best of times working out what is due, and again not very good at correcting the mistakes that they have made...