New charges, what happens if PWC refuses direct payment?

kitkatt1982

Just been reading with interest posts about new charging system. As with anything, there's going to be flaws.

Just wondering, does anyone know where the charges issue would lie if NRP wants to pay directly but PWC won't? Would the NRP still have to pay extra on top of regular maintenance to use the services or would it be deducted from PWC? 1st not right to be charged for a service you do not want, and 2nd not right for welfare of child?

Any ideas...?

RedSky

Page 22, paragraph 28 - http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/strengthening-families.pdf

PreludeForTimeFeelers

There will be another consultation regarding the issue of charging, which should have several options proposed. I'll keep an eye out for it and will try to post a thread if I see it on their site.

fannyanna

Simple solution. You tell the PWC that you will only pay direct. If they refuse you refuse to pay. They'll soon change their mind or go to the CSA (at their own cost).

jarhead66

on one govement paper that i have read was saying that if the N.R.P. wants a private arrangement or pay maintenance direct and the P.W.C. dosn't than the N.R.P. will not be subjected to charges if it goes to the CSA, but remember the CSA are very anti N.R.P.
Another way that a sweet little inocent P.W.C. might try and stitch up a N.R.P. is to say that they have been a victim of domestic violence, which means that the P.W.C. will not have to pay any admin charge, in by doing this they go straight to the CSA without using the new gateway service, and the N.R.P. might land having to pay the charges, I am expecting my ex to go down this road as i can not she her being happy with paying less on CSA3 than i am at present on CSA1. If she does then i am going to ask for prove ( court dates, arrest dates, charge sheets which there are none!!) other wise i won't accept this.

:beer::beer:

pd001

jarhead66 wrote: »

I am expecting my ex to go down this road as i can not she her being happy with paying less on CSA3 than i am at present on CSA1. If she does then i am going to ask for prove ( court dates, arrest dates, charge sheets which there are none!!) other wise i won't accept this.

:beer::beer:

It will be interesting to see how you get on

midnight_express

jarhead66 wrote: »

on one govement paper that i have read was saying that if the N.R.P. wants a private arrangement or pay maintenance direct and the P.W.C. dosn't than the N.R.P. will not be subjected to charges if it goes to the CSA, but remember the CSA are very anti N.R.P.
Another way that a sweet little inocent P.W.C. might try and stitch up a N.R.P. is to say that they have been a victim of domestic violence, which means that the P.W.C. will not have to pay any admin charge, in by doing this they go straight to the CSA without using the new gateway service, and the N.R.P. might land having to pay the charges, I am expecting my ex to go down this road as i can not she her being happy with paying less on CSA3 than i am at present on CSA1. If she does then i am going to ask for prove ( court dates, arrest dates, charge sheets which there are none!!) other wise i won't accept this.

:beer::beer:

The CSA get massive abuse from both sides and are under no illusions about either party.

Marisco

jarhead66 wrote: »

on one govement paper that i have read was saying that if the N.R.P. wants a private arrangement or pay maintenance direct and the P.W.C. dosn't than the N.R.P. will not be subjected to charges if it goes to the CSA, but remember the CSA are very anti N.R.P.
Another way that a sweet little inocent P.W.C. might try and stitch up a N.R.P. is to say that they have been a victim of domestic violence, which means that the P.W.C. will not have to pay any admin charge, in by doing this they go straight to the CSA without using the new gateway service, and the N.R.P. might land having to pay the charges, I am expecting my ex to go down this road as i can not she her being happy with paying less on CSA3 than i am at present on CSA1. If she does then i am going to ask for prove ( court dates, arrest dates, charge sheets which there are none!!) other wise i won't accept this.

:beer::beer:

Surely though there'll have to be some sort of proof??? They cannot just take the PWC's word for it - can they?:eek: Won't they have to base it on police reports, Womens refuges etc? Otherwise what is to stop any bitter PWC going down this road, to not only discredit the NRP, but to avoid paying as well!

clearingout

My understanding is that apart from the first one-off open the case fee (which the person who opens the case is going to have to pay - probably most of the time the PWC), both 'sides' are going to have to pay if the CSA is used as a collection service. CSA will be still be able to impose DEOs, and do all the other legal stuff they do for the non-payers but they are not going to assume either 'side' is right or wrong, simply charge both.

I think there is a need to recognise that the Government no longer benefits from the existence of the CSA in that all monies now go to the PWC (I appreciate there are arrears they are dealing with, however). I am not sure why we think we shouldn't have to pay for using their services if we can't come to an arrangement between ourselves as parents. I'm a PWC who has an NRP who isn't going to pay and isn't going to discuss it with me - I will have no choice but to use the CSA if I am to ever receive maintenance for the children. I'm annoyed I'll have to pay but I also recognise that even at 12% (which is the highest I've seen the charges mooted at), it's going to be far cheaper to me than to have to use a solicitor. Not to mention far less stress having someone else conduct a complex legal case on your behalf than doing it yourself, even with legal help. I'm no fan of the CSA - I have concerns about how my case has been administered at times - but I do recognise that they are trying and that the real problem is my ex who refuses to support his children.

whystillcsa1

I think we are missing a small point. I doubt any pwc will accept an agreement / direct payment based on csa3 if the nrp is still csa1. What needs to be addressed before charges etc is fairness across the board and not 3 different assessment scales. The timetable for migration is a farce. If I base my calcs on csa3 and call pwc up to suggest the reduction it will squarely refused. What comeback do I have then since csa use csa1 for my assessment.

clearingout

fannyanna wrote: »

Simple solution. You tell the PWC that you will only pay direct. If they refuse you refuse to pay. They'll soon change their mind or go to the CSA (at their own cost).

I have just posted but wanted to pick this post up as there seems to be an awful lot of people who believe that charging is either just a one off fee for opening the case or that only one 'side' is going to be charged - the 'side' that refuses to co-operate.

A one off fee will be paid by one side, yes. This opens the case. Proposed fee is £100 for everyone other than victims of domestic violence (free) or PWC on benefits (£50).

If the CSA is used to collect the child maintenance, both sides will be charged. The NRP on top of what is paid as maintenance, the PWC losing the charge from the maintenance.

So would work like this:

Assume charge is set at 10%. NPR to assessed at £100 a month. NRP actually pays £110, PWC receives £90. CSA have charged £20 for their service. Lots of incentive both sides to not put money into the CSA's pocket.

Theory, I guess, is that those who can move away from the CSA will do that. CSA will therefore be charging 'realistically' only for those who need more prolonged help, like myself, with an ex who needs some serious chasing. For me, having to pay say £100 in every £1000 they collect is surely less than having to pay a solicitor to stand in court at maybe £500 a half day to have my ex not turn up again and again and again...

Is this how others have understood it or do I need to go back and re-read the documents?!