CSA Please can anyone advise

kevin137

owdslackdraws wrote: »

I gave up posting on this site after a short time, although I do follow posts because most contain good information, however I am so disgusted that I have to comment on this post.

OP asked a question, and as far as I can see no one has answered the question, just ripped her apart without knowing her situation. If a PWC had asked how do I screw more money from the NRP I am sure the reaction would have been totally different.

Nail & Head come to mind...

Oh and as a side note, the name of this Website/Forum is....???

And the OP is trying to do...???

Hehe

EricaRachel

Whilst I do think that NRP should pay for their children, I do have a semblance of sympathy with the OP. When my ex and I moved in toegther, we ended up being crucified by the CSA payments, because I was on a good salary (actually earning more than him) so the CSA gave a high award to his ex as they decided that I could pay the mortgage etc. She and her husband-his income never factored into any of the calculations, despite the fact he earned more than my ex and I together- lived in a beautiful detached house with 3 holidays a year,she chose not to work to support the child, whilst we were each working 50-60 hr weeks and then struggling to live and to maintain our home after the maintenance was paid. I was also told back then that if my useless ex was ever caught and forced to pay for our two children, the payment may have been adjusted upwards again, as I would be deemed to have even more money to pay everything, leaving his free for his ex to plunder. It made me very resentful- I even snapped at the CSA worker at one time 'why don't you just get my ex to send whatever you can get out of him straight to my partners ex'!

I in fact reduced my hours, spending more time with my children,which made us better off, whilst his ex still, in my opinion, received a fair amount, right up until the youngest reached 16 and she moved him abroad.

I really don't agree with the OP's assertion that there contribution should be nil, and in fact he has had an easy ride, paying nothing for 4 years.This is all a sad side effect of broken families that we have to just deal with.The real victims are our children though.

kevin137

EricaRachel wrote: »

I in fact reduced my hours, spending more time with my children,which made us better off, whilst his ex still, in my opinion, received a fair amount, right up until the youngest reached 16 and she moved him abroad.

How dare you do something to better your own life and reduce CSA payments by your actions...

That is so selfish of you...

And yes i agree that something should be paid, but to be crucified like she has by what i can only describe and people who are bitter and twisted when it comes to people trying to avoid paying CS, i thought was overly harsh.

And the stupid thing is, THEY ARE NOT HER KIDS, so why should she support them...?

Personally, i think the quicker the CSA shut down every CSA1 case the better...! Then no one can perceive that the NRPP is paying, as it is a straight percentage of NRP's income...! And everyone knows exactly where they stand...!

owdslackdraws

Kevin136 & EricaRachel, thank you!

I agree NRP shoud pay, but pay what is fair. As far as I can see at no point has the OP said that her Husband (not boyfriend, as some mention) does not pay for his daughter, maybe he has had a nil assement because the family has 2 young children in the house and this classifies them as on low income for CSA appraisal.

Maybe he pays extra for the time she spends with her father. Riding Lesson, Laptop ect LOL, SORRY!

I will bite the bullet and say that YES on CSA 1 , the more you pay in rent the less CSA you pay, as they have 2 children in the house it won't be capped at 50% of NRP's take home pay, However I am no expert on CSA1 but have studied it to the best of my ability, I await the experts to join in and give the same unbiased advice to the OP that they frequently give on here to the PWC

clearingout

kevin137 wrote: »

How dare you do something to better your own life and reduce CSA payments by your actions...

That is so selfish of you...

And yes i agree that something should be paid, but to be crucified like she has by what i can only describe and people who are bitter and twisted when it comes to people trying to avoid paying CS, i thought was overly harsh.

And the stupid thing is, THEY ARE NOT HER KIDS, so why should she support them...?

Personally, i think the quicker the CSA shut down every CSA1 case the better...! Then no one can perceive that the NRPP is paying, as it is a straight percentage of NRP's income...! And everyone knows exactly where they stand...!

see, this is the issue isn't it? I know you're tounge in cheek Kevin so it's not a go at you but this is the problem for the PWC.

It's deemed acceptable for the new partner to reduce her hours, reduce maintenance as a result (I know little about CSA1, but I can see that it's generally very unfair, particularly when a new partner comes into it) and have quality time with her children. Presumably, the fact she has a new partner and there are two salaries coming in (albeit one is being plundered by the CSA!), makes it easier for her to make that decision. We all applaud. Work-life balance achieved. Children all getting some money in their pockets.

Yet when the PWC, a single parent, trying to get by, makes a decision to work 16 hours a week because she then has enough money in her pocket to get by, she's just 'scrounging'. I ask, what is the difference? The difference is simple: (some) people in partnerships consider themselves superior to single mums. Our society operates at such a level that we look down on those women who have, for whatever reason, main care of their children. Dad has moved on, new relationship, more children, that's his right. Mum moves on, new relationship, more children, she's expecting the ex to fund her lifestyle. Mum doesn't move into a new relationship, he's labelled 'single mum' and 'benefit scrounger' despite the fact that by far the majority of couples in this country have an entitlement to Tax Credits just as single mum's do. And I bet they all claim Child Benefit.

The fact of the matter is the PWC gets it in the neck no matter where she stands, no matter what she does or doesn't do.

Bluemeanie_2

stroodes wrote: »

Wondering if the new Universal Credit that is coming into force will take any payment from nrps to pwcs into consideration before issuing benefits to pwc..............I do hope so

Me too. It a annoys me that the in some cases the PWCs are on full benefits and do not work at all. Then still get hefty CSA. I thought the whole point of it was people paying for their own children not taxpayers. But yet a working NRP seems to get stung twice. On their tax which will in some way subsidise the benefits of the PWC, then by paying CSA. Does not seem fair, so I can understand the point of view the OP is coming from.

clearingout

Bluemeanie wrote: »

Me too. It a annoys me that the in some cases the PWCs are on full benefits and do not work at all. Then still get hefty CSA. I thought the whole point of it was people paying for their own children not taxpayers. But yet a working NRP seems to get stung twice. On their tax which will in some way subsidise the benefits of the PWC, then by paying CSA. Does not seem fair, so I can understand the point of view the OP is coming from.

so you prefer it the way it used to be? that the NRP has to pay maintenance but that all but £20 a week goes back to the Secretary of State? the argument then was NRPs were paying money for their children that they never see. Now they do see it, it's always about the PWC not working and being a scrounger, isn't it?

See, can't win!

Bluemeanie_2

clearingout wrote: »

so you prefer it the way it used to be? that the NRP has to pay maintenance but that all but £20 a week goes back to the Secretary of State? the argument then was NRPs were paying money for their children that they never see. Now they do see it, it's always about the PWC not working and being a scrounger, isn't it?

See, can't win!

Yes. I would prefer that way. Then the two people who chose to have a child is paying for them. Not the taxpayer.

clearingout

Bluemeanie wrote: »

Yes. I would prefer that way. Then the two people who chose to have a child is paying for them. Not the taxpayer.

so yet more children living in poverty (which I believe, even if the rest of you don't!!!). Fab.

fannyanna

Bluemeanie wrote: »

Me too. It a annoys me that the in some cases the PWCs are on full benefits and do not work at all. Then still get hefty CSA. I thought the whole point of it was people paying for their own children not taxpayers. But yet a working NRP seems to get stung twice. On their tax which will in some way subsidise the benefits of the PWC, then by paying CSA. Does not seem fair, so I can understand the point of view the OP is coming from.

clearingout wrote: »

so you prefer it the way it used to be? that the NRP has to pay maintenance but that all but £20 a week goes back to the Secretary of State? the argument then was NRPs were paying money for their children that they never see. Now they do see it, it's always about the PWC not working and being a scrounger, isn't it?

See, can't win!

Bluemeanie wrote: »

Yes. I would prefer that way. Then the two people who chose to have a child is paying for them. Not the taxpayer.

I find the current system to be completely unfair on many angles. I think it's unfair purely from a PWC angle.

• PWC 1 on benefits and receiving £5 per week in maintenance.
• PWC 2 on benefits and receiving £100 per week in maintenance.

How is that fair to PWC 1 and many other PWC's who are in a similar position or do not receive any child maintenance at all.