CSA 3 New System

ford_prefect_3

RedSky wrote: »

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.

Its loaded against on several levels.

Firstly the maintenance direct option has to be accepted by the PWC, if they refuse to accept direct payment then the NRP is left with no choice.

Also, it opens up the whole issue of what is or isnt maintenance, CSA history is littered with NRP's who paid direct and even labelled it maintenance on the bank statement and where left with "arrears" as the PWC told the CSA that it wasnt maintenance. As an NRP I wouldnt risk that either.

If only the CSA would opt for the Australian model where contact and maintenance are linked and we would have the same 97% compliance rate and happier children not used as pawns by the parents.

ford_prefect_3

speedster wrote: »

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!!

Wouldnt be the first time I have been called a penis wielding mysoginist!

The sad thing is that by making up stuff like that the people who claimed to be helping victims of domestic violence (of which there are many) are doing them a dis service.

The bottom line is that the 2 a week figure was pulled out of the !!! of a magic elephant, it has no bearing on reality. I guess the PR/Advertising twonk didnt like the sound of "0.8 women a week are unlawfully killed for a variety of reasons" as it doesnt have the shock factor that the 2 a week figure does.

clearingout

RedSky wrote: »

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".

yeah, I hear you. I think I worded things badly. Essentially, I was trying to make the point that both sides have to pay for using the service, regardless of the reasons they are using it. Obviously, if the CSA can't collect, they won't charge me. However, they will charge me for anything they do collect from an NRP who was never going to give me the option of not having to use the CSA to help my children receive the support they deserve. It's this I'm objecting to, I guess. I accept, however, the CSA can't discriminate at the individual level and take things on a case by case basis - we all pay, or no one pays.

speedster

ford_prefect wrote: »

Wouldnt be the first time I have been called a penis wielding mysoginist!

The sad thing is that by making up stuff like that the people who claimed to be helping victims of domestic violence (of which there are many) are doing them a dis service.

The bottom line is that the 2 a week figure was pulled out of the !!! of a magic elephant, it has no bearing on reality. I guess the PR/Advertising twonk didnt like the sound of "0.8 women a week are unlawfully killed for a variety of reasons" as it doesnt have the shock factor that the 2 a week figure does.

totally.

but when has a good fact ever got in the way when it comes to the militant wimmins aid. like you say, they don't do themselves any favours.

same way it's strange how they forget to mention that more mothers than fathers kill their children either. wonder why that is?? :eek:

jarhead66

As some of you already know the "Welfare reform bill" is now at the committee stage in the house of lords so should goto royal assent in Nov and be passed as law. The bill includes changes to the CSA and the new gross income scheme. The CSA also becomes part of the works and pensions dept in Nov so hopefully they will have to improve there standards ten fold and start running things properly not like the clown dept in billy smarts circus like it is now!! When the bill is passed i will start a new thread up on here and anyone who is not happy with the csa scheme they are on should goto there local MP and get him to try and get you on the new scheme, it might work!!! Most people who are on CSA1 and have a partner will be better off (even with the proposed charges) on the new gross income scheme as they only take the NRP's wage into account, I know that the CSA will try and drag out the transition of CSA1 as as the aprox 50000 CSA1 cases end every yr so it will keep them in a job for abit longer. Just remember one thing the CSA have been loaded with problems right from the start, so don't expect to much!!:T