Nil assessment?

Marisco

doodoot wrote: »

Thanks guys.

If NRP has said that he is being provided for by someone else, surely they have to show some evidence to prove their statement?

Also, if on benefits are there specific benefits which are exempt from maintenance deductions?

I just don't understand how someone can say that either their pension-claiming mother or part-time working partner mum-of-two is providing for them! :eek:

How though? If his mam or GF is "keeping" him, then that is their business, daft as they are!!! If he is "showing" no income from benefits and HMRC have got him as having no income, then obviously he's getting money from somewhere!!! But it's proving it that's going to be difficult, especially if he's working "under the radar". If the CSA have him as having no income, then they will assess him at nil. They are not private detectives and only go on as having no income, they'll not delve into his private life to see if it's true or not. They'll check to see if he's getting benefits or check to see if he's paying tax, if not then that's it as far as they are concerned. They don't have the time or staff to follow people around to see if they are working in the "black" economy.

FBaby

Marisco wrote: »

You beat me to it PFTF, I was about to ask the same! Surely no one is suggesting that the NRPP pay? I'm not meaning the "duckers and divers", but people who have a legit reason for the dad staying at home?

I certainly would. After all, pwcp have no choice but to support their ste-children if the pwc doesn't work, so why should it be any different for nrpps?

When the nrp and his partner make the decision to have a child together, and subsequently that the nrp will be the one staying at home, surely they should factor all the nrp's obligations. if that means nrpp contributing instead of the nrp because they benefit financially doing it this way, then I don't think what is wrong with the nrpp contributing towards maintenance.

Saying that, the OP situation is not so clear since the nrp has no contact with the concerned child, meaning that the nrpp doesn't either, which makes it morally a bit less straightforward.

clearingout

FBaby wrote: »

When the nrp and his partner make the decision to have a child together, and subsequently that the nrp will be the one staying at home, surely they should factor all the nrp's obligations. if that means nrpp contributing instead of the nrp because they benefit financially doing it this way, then I don't think what is wrong with the nrpp contributing towards maintenance.

Can open. Worms every where!!!

I agree. Morally it's reasonable as a PWC to expect this. Rare that you will find a NRPP see it from this perspective, however.

kevin137

Surely even if he was a stay at home dad, he would be entitled to benefits of some sort...? That being the case, he should be paying the £5 a week, for what it's worth...!

Is that not how it works when i mum is stay at home, she is entitled to claim something, if it is for the reason of looking after children under a certain age in particular...???

I get confused by people in this situation, either there are avoiding, or are really stupid not claiming what they are entitled to... Either way, they have an obligation to provide...!

PreludeForTimeFeelers

kevin137 wrote: »

Surely even if he was a stay at home dad, he would be entitled to benefits of some sort...? That being the case, he should be paying the £5 a week, for what it's worth...!

Is that not how it works when i mum is stay at home, she is entitled to claim something, if it is for the reason of looking after children under a certain age in particular...???

I get confused by people in this situation, either there are avoiding, or are really stupid not claiming what they are entitled to... Either way, they have an obligation to provide...!

I'm not too sure what the rules on Income Support are, but surely he'd not be entitled to Job Seeker's Allowance as he'd not actually be seeking a job.

I guess he may claim tax credits, depending on household income.

It might be worth the PWC in the case asking the CSA to investigate whether tax credits are in receipt. Obviously it's a bit of a hypothetical situation, as we don't really know what his circumstances are.

In cases where the NRP says they are being supported from someone else, the CSA will look at benefits, tax credits, and HMRC. If none of these are in payment then obviously there's always a chance that he may be working cash in hand, but the NRP always has the right to be believed.

Marisco

clearingout wrote: »

Can open. Worms every where!!!

I agree. Morally it's reasonable as a PWC to expect this. Rare that you will find a NRPP see it from this perspective, however.

Had a good chuckle at that!! :rotfl: TBH, if I was in that situation, I'd be quite prepared to pay for clothes, trips, half of childcare etc. What I wouldn't do is give the PWC actual cash! Mind, this would only be if the child was actually in the NRP's life. If the PWC refuses contact, blackmails or makes like a biatch, like oh's ex did, then she can go whistle!!

And I wouldn't if we were struggling and the PWC was well off either. I know at this point I should don the tin hat, but if I was earning it, and the PWC was well off, then I'm afraid she would have to do without my pittance, morally right or not! As it's odds on the reason I'd be at work and the NRP would be at home, is because I'd earn more than he would, I would not dish out my hard earned if it wasn't needed.

FBaby

Marisco wrote: »

Had a good chuckle at that!! :rotfl: TBH, if I was in that situation, I'd be quite prepared to pay for clothes, trips, half of childcare etc. What I wouldn't do is give the PWC actual cash! Mind, this would only be if the child was actually in the NRP's life. If the PWC refuses contact, blackmails or makes like a biatch, like oh's ex did, then she can go whistle!!

And I wouldn't if we were struggling and the PWC was well off either. I know at this point I should don the tin hat, but if I was earning it, and the PWC was well off, then I'm afraid she would have to do without my pittance, morally right or not! As it's odds on the reason I'd be at work and the NRP would be at home, is because I'd earn more than he would, I would not dish out my hard earned if it wasn't needed.

I don't see how all this got anything to do. On the assumption that the nrp does have contact with the children, because otherwise, it is just a totally different story, the nrp has an obligation to support his children, either by contributing a percentage of his salary, or by looking for work to be able to do so. I assume that if a nrp gives up his job (or is not working for work), it is because he and his partner benefit financially from it. That calculation that brings them to the conclusion that they are better off with him not working and looking after the baby (rather then the nrpp staying at home or both working and paying childcare) should include the contribution that he was making towards his children. If the sole saving comes from suddenly not having to contribute towards maintenance, then that is just playing the system and wrong.

It's interesting how nrpps when working often see their income as their sole income to dispose as desired, whereas pwcps are much more likely to see it as the family income. I can imagine how my ex would react if I decided to stop working, therefore fully relying on my partner to support us (as we would be over the threshold for any tax credits), but he told me that he wasn't prepared to support my children, so I better go to my ex and demand that he pays double maintenance....

doodoot

It really is true that the CSA are run by monkeys.

My friend showed me the letter that they sent to her today with the assessment - she was told it was a nil award over the phone, and it's taken til yesterday to receive the letter.

Her surname is wrong - she's now married and has been for 2 years.

Her children's surnames are wrong - they changed 2 years ago.

It states that she receives Income Support and/or Pension Credit - she's 35 and last claimed IS in 2006.


She's decided that she's not going to bother anymore with this set of useless idiots, and will cease trying to get any maintenance from their father.

I've advised her to still keep the case open though, just in case she changes her mind in the future.

romanempire

FBaby wrote: »

the nrp has an obligation to support his children, either by contributing a percentage of his salary, or by looking for work to be able to do so.

What? So all we're good for is money? Some of us, maybe most of us, would love to take care of our children directly (cook dinner for them, make sure they do their homework, talk with them and do things together, tuck them up safe in bed and all the other things that a parent does to care for their child) but all you whining #*£$*& want is our money. And the system backs them up by treating us like mere sperm donors and walking wallets. I did not become a father to be relegated to that role and I'm damned if I'm going to let the money-grabbing, spendthrift ex and the CSA do it.

R.

clearingout

romanempire wrote: »

What? So all we're good for is money? Some of us, maybe most of us, would love to take care of our children directly (cook dinner for them, make sure they do their homework, talk with them and do things together, tuck them up safe in bed and all the other things that a parent does to care for their child) but all you whining #*£$*& want is our money. And the system backs them up by treating us like mere sperm donors and walking wallets. I did not become a father to be relegated to that role and I'm damned if I'm going to let the money-grabbing, spendthrift ex and the CSA do it.

R.

surely you believe a PWC has a responsibility to support their children financially either by working or by looking for work?