Do csa ask for mothers income/assets??

DeeDee74

jamespir wrote: »

your presuming that based on your situation and why is it theres never any posts from male pwc complaining bout nrp's ?

because to men its not about the money thats a trait only women seem to have

No not based on my situation at all!!!
of course men complain about not getting the money KIDS ENT FREE TO KEEP...
of course your gona hear more women moaning cause FACT more women than Men have there kids full time.
simple if the couple were still together thay'd both pay, so why when thay split up is it expected to fall to just the parent who has the children full time? it doesnt

13Kent

I don't think anyone is saying that a NRP shouldn't pay but just that the amount paid should be fair.

Unfortunately the CSA system is unfair and engenders unfairness and dispute as it has two or three different payment schemes and the same person earning the same amount can have entirely different calculations depending on the scheme used. In our case for example we are on CSA 1 and paying nearly £600 a month. on CSA 2 (no change to our income or circumstances and based on their calculator) our payment would be approx £280. We are very bitter about this and feel we are paying over the odds, especially when our PWC has a much more affluent lifestyle than we do.

Also in our case the CSA has undoubtedly been biased in favour of the PWC who is an unscrupulous person, and told the CSA my husband had paid no maintenance when not only did he regularly pay £300 a month (which although 10 years ago was still an amount more than the CSA 2 requires at present, so a fair amount I think you will agree) he was also footing the bill for household expenses such as insurance, tv license, a joint loan and at one point the mortgage too as the bills continued to come out of his account on direct debit after she had decided to end their relationship and move him out of the house. Unfortunately the maintenance payments were not labelled as such and the PWC denied that they had been paid despite repeated appeals to the CSA and even to our MP my husband then got £14,000 of arrears added to his account for money he had already paid (which have now been paid off so are not included in our current assessment of nearly £600 a month) . So not only do we feel that we are paying over the odds regularly, but thanks to the CSA the PWC has already had a bonus payment of money she had already recieved, and there is nothing we can do about it. Also the eldest child dropped out of education at Christmas time, is not working but due to the loopholes and the way the system works the PWC is still recieving child benefit and therefore 4 months on CSA is still being paid for that child, and the PWC is encouraging that child NOT to go out and get a job because financially the PWC will lose out. So we are paying to encourage that child to sit around doing nothing - what sort of a start in life is that? And when it looked like the Child benefit WAS going to be withdrawn guess what? We get a call from that child asking to come and live with us - but it didn't happen as due to the loopholes the child benefit continues to be paid and so does the CSA payments.

I am aware that there are unscrupulous people on both sides, but in our case we feel the CSA system has failed us well and truly - and more to the point failed the child in question who is not in education and not working, and is doing nothing in life thanks to a greedy PWC and a ridiculously bad child maintenance system.

duchy

I love stories like the one above.

It appears that if a parent no longer lives with a child they have no influence on the child at all ? I don't believe this-even if you don't ive with your child if contact is regular and the parent child relationship continues then there is no reason why an absent parent can't continue to be a positive influence in a child's life. Good parents absent or present will always make an impact.

shegirl

13Kent wrote: »

I don't think anyone is saying that a NRP shouldn't pay but just that the amount paid should be fair.

Unfortunately the CSA system is unfair and engenders unfairness and dispute as it has two or three different payment schemes and the same person earning the same amount can have entirely different calculations depending on the scheme used. In our case for example we are on CSA 1 and paying nearly £600 a month. on CSA 2 (no change to our income or circumstances and based on their calculator) our payment would be approx £280. We are very bitter about this and feel we are paying over the odds, especially when our PWC has a much more affluent lifestyle than we do.

Also in our case the CSA has undoubtedly been biased in favour of the PWC who is an unscrupulous person, and told the CSA my husband had paid no maintenance when not only did he regularly pay £300 a month (which although 10 years ago was still an amount more than the CSA 2 requires at present, so a fair amount I think you will agree) he was also footing the bill for household expenses such as insurance, tv license, a joint loan and at one point the mortgage too as the bills continued to come out of his account on direct debit after she had decided to end their relationship and move him out of the house. Unfortunately the maintenance payments were not labelled as such and the PWC denied that they had been paid despite repeated appeals to the CSA and even to our MP my husband then got £14,000 of arrears added to his account for money he had already paid (which have now been paid off so are not included in our current assessment of nearly £600 a month) . So not only do we feel that we are paying over the odds regularly, but thanks to the CSA the PWC has already had a bonus payment of money she had already recieved, and there is nothing we can do about it. Also the eldest child dropped out of education at Christmas time, is not working but due to the loopholes and the way the system works the PWC is still recieving child benefit and therefore 4 months on CSA is still being paid for that child, and the PWC is encouraging that child NOT to go out and get a job because financially the PWC will lose out. So we are paying to encourage that child to sit around doing nothing - what sort of a start in life is that? And when it looked like the Child benefit WAS going to be withdrawn guess what? We get a call from that child asking to come and live with us - but it didn't happen as due to the loopholes the child benefit continues to be paid and so does the CSA payments.

I am aware that there are unscrupulous people on both sides, but in our case we feel the CSA system has failed us well and truly - and more to the point failed the child in question who is not in education and not working, and is doing nothing in life thanks to a greedy PWC and a ridiculously bad child maintenance system.

Would you find it unfair if it wasn't for the fact that CSA2 exists?I think that's what causes a lot of bitterness on part of the nrp -that some are on a different system.

The thing is,as I see it,they were paying that amount before,were ok with it before.System comes in for new people and they instantly think it's horrible they are still on the old one.Well,in part they have a point and I agree it's rather unfair to have different systems.BUT the most important part for me,is they've been supporting these kids financially and look how much difference changing your system would make to their financial support?

So,see,it's not just mothers on about the money is it,fathers want to reduce it by going onto the new system because 'it isn't fair' not considering it wouldn't be fair to remove (as in reduce)money from the child that they've been receiving for years.

The systems will never fit all parents..but considering it isn't ABOUT the parents it doesn't matter.

13Kent

duchy wrote: »

I love stories like the one above.

It appears that if a parent no longer lives with a child they have no influence on the child at all ? I don't believe this-even if you don't ive with your child if contact is regular and the parent child relationship continues then there is no reason why an absent parent can't continue to be a positive influence in a child's life. Good parents absent or present will always make an impact.

I think that is a very unfair comment, and unfortunately things are not as black and white as that. My husband dearly wishes has more influence, but it's not through lack of trying. I think you are underestimating the influence of a mother who lives with a child has, particularly when that mother has shown herself to be very manipulative and deceptive in the past, and continues to be so. My husband didn't know the child had dropped out of education until he spoke to the college directly after being suspicious of the child seeming to have a lot of free time - the child nor the pwc had volunteered that information. It's impossible to have any influence over decisions that are made that you are not party to - by the time my husband knew about it the decision for the child to drop out of college had already been made, and there was nothing he could do about it.

And how do you tell a child that the advice given to them by their mother is wrong and not in their best interests and will they believe you anyway? And doing that would mean you are being derogatory about the other parent, something we have tried hard not to do in front of the children, and encourage a lot of conflict between us and the PWC and put the child in a position of having to choose loyalties - that isn't fair either.

The influence we have is limited and the influence of the PWC is stronger, we have discussed with the child the options available, we have told the child that in the event of CSA no longer being paid we would support the child financially directly and not via the PWC if the child wanted to start a course which would not be considered one that would enable CSA to still be paid. We have discussed options and the benefits of the child going out and getting a job, but all to no avail.

We don't know what else to do. If you have any suggestions about how we could increase our influence for the benefit of this child then they would be gratefully received, so please feel free to make some suggestions.

13Kent

shegirl wrote: »

Would you find it unfair if it wasn't for the fact that CSA2 exists?I think that's what causes a lot of bitterness on part of the nrp -that some are on a different system.


No, I think you have hit the nail on the head, I don't think we would, if there was just one system and we were paying the amount that that system specified we would just accept that that was the payment needed and get on with it, but for there to be such a discrepancy between the two systems is just madness especially when we know we have already paid twice by having to pay arrears.

I agree that it may be unfair for that money to be reduced, but the PWC seems to have a life of luxury from our viewpoint with holidays abroad and all the latest gadgets and gizmos and I feel sad that I can't give my own children those luxuries because we don't have the spare cash, and when the PWC exploits the system to get even more money which we don't feel she is entitled to such as the arrears payments, and now full maintenance being paid to the PWC even though one child is no longer in education, ( if needed we would continue to support the child but directly and not via the PWC) does make us feel that the PWC is just being greedy and is out for what she can get financially rather than looking out for the best interests of the children which in teh end is what it is all about.

Thank you for your comments, I appreciate your point of view.

cord123

I personally think that the maintenance payments should be counted as income when working out tax credits etc... my husbands ex has a much bigger household income than us when you take into account her tax credits etc, then she gets maintenance on top and it works out that we feed them more than her because they are at childminders etc the 3 days she works then we have them from the friday onwards so she would ususally only feed them one night. (this being a frozen dinner!)

My hubby left her with everything, even the new car and she still isnt happy with what she gets. He pays half of every school trip, always buys their uniform come sept (he refuses to buy them shoes durign the school year if they dont look after their shoes though because she doesnt tell them off if they drag their feet etc. this means that come dec they are in £8 cheapy shoes!!!)


He even paid half of her £900 a month childcare bill when he left only to find out nearly a year later that she got most of that back! We are yet to be paid that back but he hasnt stopped his payments like everyone has told him too!


I am fed up with single mothers thinking they get a raw deal, my single mother friend works 3 days a week yet she has tenerife, haven and euro disney all booked this year - we have nothing!


Before I get jumped on my mum was a single parent with 6 children for about 5 years and even she has said that we have to struggle alot more than her due to the price of rent etc where we live ( we have moved as far as possible into a cheaper area but cant move any further because of being close to my hubbys children!)

shegirl

cord123 wrote: »

I personally think that the maintenance payments should be counted as income when working out tax credits etc... my husbands ex has a much bigger household income than us when you take into account her tax credits etc, then she gets maintenance on top and it works out that we feed them more than her because they are at childminders etc the 3 days she works then we have them from the friday onwards so she would ususally only feed them one night. (this being a frozen dinner!)

My hubby left her with everything, even the new car and she still isnt happy with what she gets. He pays half of every school trip, always buys their uniform come sept (he refuses to buy them shoes durign the school year if they dont look after their shoes though because she doesnt tell them off if they drag their feet etc. this means that come dec they are in £8 cheapy shoes!!!)


He even paid half of her £900 a month childcare bill when he left only to find out nearly a year later that she got most of that back! We are yet to be paid that back but he hasnt stopped his payments like everyone has told him too!


I am fed up with single mothers thinking they get a raw deal, my single mother friend works 3 days a week yet she has tenerife, haven and euro disney all booked this year - we have nothing!


Before I get jumped on my mum was a single parent with 6 children for about 5 years and even she has said that we have to struggle alot more than her due to the price of rent etc where we live ( we have moved as far as possible into a cheaper area but cant move any further because of being close to my hubbys children!)

Thing is,if it was regarded in working tax credit would it not also end up having to be taken into consideration for things such as child tax credit aswell?Meaning that the child would end up no better off and would not be benefitting so much from the money from the nrp?I can see where you're coming from and understand your thought on it,but it would end up with the child not benefitting wouldn't it.

Marisco

But is it fair, as Kent points out, that their kids have to go without because her oh has to pay such a large chunk to the first kids who don't go without? That's not very fair either. The only folk who can maintain 2 households in the same manner as before split ups, are those who earn fantastic wages. The "first" family has to realise they cannot possibly have the same standard as before, which I think is what causes a lot of problems, they expect to, and don't really care if it causes hardships to the "other" family. I don't know what the answer is, apart from everyone lowering their expectations all round.

shegirl

Marisco wrote: »

But is it fair, as Kent points out, that their kids have to go without because her oh has to pay such a large chunk to the first kids who don't go without? That's not very fair either. The only folk who can maintain 2 households in the same manner as before split ups, are those who earn fantastic wages. The "first" family has to realise they cannot possibly have the same standard as before, which I think is what causes a lot of problems, they expect to, and don't really care if it causes hardships to the "other" family. I don't know what the answer is, apart from everyone lowering their expectations all round.

That's the problem isn't it.It goes round and round and is so different for everyone.Some are better off than others,some are worse off than others.Everyone has different views and different lives.There will never be a system that benefits everyone.Naturally,the 'first' family expect to have what they're used to and that's perfectly understandable and fair to them,but then the new family find it unfair to themselves,that's why it becomes such a mess.It's not a nice state of affairs for anyone involved really but responsibility comes at a price I guess,I'm not sure there is a way to make it fair for everyone -someone will always lose out somewhere,you just have to hope none of the kids do.

The new system they'll be bringing in has to be the worst in my opinion -charging both parents for using them leaving the nrp paying a set amount but not all that money going to the kids,then the pwc paying aswell and having a deduction from the maintenance.I know they want to encourage parents to set these things up themselves,but for some of us,no matter how much we try to do that the nrp ignores you (and in some cases the pwc may do too),so both sides end up losing out really.

Have to say though,the thing that really gets me about any conversations regarding maintenance is when people come out with things such as 'why should I have to pay the pwc and fund their lifestyle','pwcs are just money grabbers expecting money or more money'.People do seem to forget it's about the kids,and just look at the other parent thinking it's about them, taking on a bitterness towards either parent and,to me,that's what causes the biggest anger with regard to maintenance.

It's all quite sad really.