CSA Please can anyone advise

duchy

BOTH families are claiming WTC so what's your point ?

All the children in this multiple relationship situation are deserving -not sure why you think one is less so than the other two but then I guess if you feel the need to use that kind of language maybe you aren't very bright.

Should parent 1 refuse child support (and lower the lifestyle of her child) so the OP can afford to move out of rented accomadation ? Or should parent 2 have stopped at one child so they could have their own bedroom ?

No easy answers are there ?

EDIT Hmmm actually although I cited them as ridiculously extreme examples -I guess there *is* an arguement for stopping at one child if you don't want them to have to share a room -or to put it another way -only have the number of kids you can afford .

Your kids are your kids forever not until the next relationship comes along and you have more.

fannyanna

duchy wrote: »

Not sure why that should be unfortunate.

My use of the word "unfortunately" was because my comments were being made to someone who is unhappy about a child maintenance liability. Hence my comment that it is fair that child maintenance is due is of course unfortunate in the view of the recipient of my comment.

It does not reflect my views on child maintenance as a whole.

fannyanna

Kevin - I am a little bit surprised by your last post and I think what you have put was in the heat of the moment and I would suggest you re-assess what you wrote and perhaps edit the language used.

I say this on the basis that you are a fairly regular poster on this forum who generally has sensible views and I think it's fair to say that you're one of the more level headed posters. This seems a bit out of character.

kevin137

DeeDee74 wrote: »

NRP claims CTC WTC also, so its ok for nrp but not pwc, both claim cause thay can simple dont see your point

Where does it say that...??? nd if bot the NRP and NRPP are working which has been said they are, it is very unlikely they would qualify for them....!

kevin137

fannyanna wrote: »

Kevin - I am a little bit surprised by your last post and I think what you have put was in the heat of the moment and I would suggest you re-assess what you wrote and perhaps edit the language used.

I say this on the basis that you are a fairly regular poster on this forum who generally has sensible views and I think it's fair to say that you're one of the more level headed posters. This seems a bit out of character.

It just pi**es me off that everyone has come out and slated this woman for wanting to better the lives of her children, and i can completely see her side of the story... She sees someone who claims everything, and her husband, her and her children go without while this woman has everything paid for her...!

Why should she NOT try and better the lives of her children using the same system that is trying to screw over her family...???
And if you read back you will actually see that i advised that she should look into the real prospect of the cost should they move into a bigger place to reduce there payments to the EX...! You will notice that i am against it...

So forgive me an outburst for all the crap that this woman is having to take for what is only natural... A better life for her kids...

DeeDee74

if thay can't claim either it's cause they have 2 much income so why the big drama over £200 odd quid, so the NRP first child get's no financial support from her dad, fair ent it

fannyanna

DeeDee74 wrote: »

if thay can't claim either it's cause they have 2 much income so why the big drama over £200 odd quid, so the NRP first child get's no financial support from her dad, fair ent it

I can't help but think that in some cases it's a complete misnomer to presume that someone who is not eligible for tax credits must be in a better financial position than someone else who is.

kevin137

DeeDee74 wrote: »

if thay can't claim either it's cause they have 2 much income so why the big drama over £200 odd quid, so the NRP first child get's no financial support from her dad, fair ent it

So lets go down that road.... I didn't say they didn't get it, what i said was nowhere did it say they DID get it...

And if you want to talk about fair lets do that...

1. the woman in receipt of csa the NRP's ex, claims everything she can... Including state funded housing benefit be it for private rent or council or somewhere in between i can tell you now that a 2 bedroom property in london is about £800 a month, and for this she pays... NOTHING as she doesn't work enough making her eligible for the benefit...

2. the OP works, as does the NRP the OP says she works 30 hours a week, (not anywhere enough to cover the rent) and they pay there own rent privately. This equates to about £800 for a 2 bedroom property in london, and because both she and the NRP work, they will be eligible for very little if any housing benefit... Yet her kids share a bedroom....

FAIR AINT IT...!!!

So in hindsight, this family of OP and NRP should by your reckoning, to be fair, not scrounge off the government, pay the CSA and shut up and take it... Is that about right...?

clearingout

kevin137 wrote: »

It just pi**es me off that everyone has come out and slated this woman for wanting to better the lives of her children, and i can completely see her side of the story... She sees someone who claims everything, and her husband, her and her children go without while this woman has everything paid for her...!

Why should she NOT try and better the lives of her children using the same system that is trying to screw over her family...???
And if you read back you will actually see that i advised that she should look into the real prospect of the cost should they move into a bigger place to reduce there payments to the EX...! You will notice that i am against it...

So forgive me an outburst for all the crap that this woman is having to take for what is only natural... A better life for her kids...

I get your point that 'this woman has everything paid for' therefore it's somehow Ok that the OP does what she can to dodge maintenance on the basis that she is looking after her own. I can actually see the logic of that.

However, being on benefits and/or reliant on tax credit because of a low wage is an existence and not a life. I say that with some experience of having had both! I don't believe that there are many parents out there who seek that kind of life for their children. I accept there are exceptions. No half decent parent would seek to avoid paying anything at all towards the up bringing of their children. I cannot subscribe to the 'PWC should be aco!!!!able for every penny/receive vouchers/payments in kind' way of thinking because I don't believe in it. I can accept, however, that there are plenty of NRPs out there who believe with good reason that maintenance money is mis-spent.

What is unpalatable to me in this scenario is a new partner who's post reads as incredibly...smug? happy? pleased? that no maintenance is paid. That's not OK.

kevin137

clearingout wrote: »

I get your point that 'this woman has everything paid for' therefore it's somehow Ok that the OP does what she can to dodge maintenance on the basis that she is looking after her own. I can actually see the logic of that.

However, being on benefits and/or reliant on tax credit because of a low wage is an existence and not a life. I say that with some experience of having had both! I don't believe that there are many parents out there who seek that kind of life for their children. I accept there are exceptions. No half decent parent would seek to avoid paying anything at all towards the up bringing of their children. I cannot subscribe to the 'PWC should be aco!!!!able for every penny/receive vouchers/payments in kind' way of thinking because I don't believe in it. I can accept, however, that there are plenty of NRPs out there who believe with good reason that maintenance money is mis-spent.

What is unpalatable to me in this scenario is a new partner who's post reads as incredibly...smug? happy? pleased? that no maintenance is paid. That's not OK.

Finally some common sense...

I agree that the OP does appear a little smug in her post, but i fully get where she is coming from.

I know it is not easy for single mothers, trust me, i am not against them, my ex was a single mother, while i was paying CSA, and when she needed a car to better herself for college so she could train in a job that allowed her to look after our son, i bought that on top of the CSA, i also paid for the tax, insurance and servicing of the same car to make sure she could continue through 3 years of study...! She was lucky i was able at the time... Would i do it again? Probably not...!!!

What gets me in this thread, is apart from the smugness, is that it is the same system you all rely on, being used from both sides of the coin...

The NRP's ex appears to work the bare minimum to stop being on JSA and yet still gets everything paid, it sounds like a lot of single mothers, but not all, not by a long way.

The OP wants to better life for her own family, and lets be honest, has NO obligation the the EX of the NRP, so why should she not ask "is this possible" that is what this forum is about after all...