New charges, what happens if PWC refuses direct payment?

whystillcsa1

That'd be right. I insisted on paying pwc direct because any money I sent to csa via direct debit was held. There was always an excuse and pwc always blamed me. but bottom line csa accrued interest. You cannot polish a turd but you can roll it in glitter.

kingfisherblue

My ex was non-compliant, to the point that he didn't inform the CSA when he changed address (moved to a different town about an hour's drive away) and refused to apy anything for the children. He told the CSA that he paid it to the children directly, but at the time, they were age 5, 7 (with learning and physical disabilities) and 14 (but wouldn't speak to her dad). Now, my two youngest would have been waving money at me, wanting me to take them to spend it, and my 14 yrear old didn't see her dad. So no, he didn't give them the money directly.

I finally managed to obtain regular payments via DEO, but only after he appeared in court. I feel that if we made a private arrangement, he would not pay, but I don't think that I should have to pay for his non-compliance. I don't work, as my middle child is severely disabled and needs constant care throughout the day and night, so I would have to pay from my benefits. He works, his wife works, and they live with her mum, so no rent to pay (this isn't an assumption - I'm still close to his family and they have told me this is fact, something that he has told his parents). In the meantime, I pay the endowments and mortgage (apart from the amount I get in SMI), and I can't move into rented accommodation as our house has been adapted for my son's disabilities.

It just seems unfair that I should have to pay because he will choose to avoid supporting his kids if at all possible. Seeing them one day a week and feeding them the occasional Happy Meal is hardly sufficient (he sees them at his mum's house, and she feeds them during the day while they are there, so he only has petrol to pay apart fromt he CM via DEO).

PreludeForTimeFeelers

clearingout wrote: »

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?!

This is my understanding of the proposals too, but with the charging side of things being up in the air that's only one of the proposals on the table.

PreludeForTimeFeelers

whystillcsa1 wrote: »

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.

There won't be charges on any current case, just the new scheme. Cs1 cases will be closed rather than transferred, timescale will be a couple of years, so they'd contact your PWC and say 'we're closing your case, but you're welcome to open a new case on the new system'.

clearingout

I agree you shouldn't have to pay Kingfisher, and it's obvious in your case who the problem is (same with mine). However, I'm not sure it's always so clear cut which is why everyone will have to pay! If you shouldn't have to pay, who should? why should we get this service for free?