CSA say they have made an overpayment of £1800. Help please

13Kent

clearingout wrote: »

so basically it would be fine to 'force' the hand of the PWC and the child in this way - basically you have a home with us and your mother can downgrade and you like it or leave it? what about what the child wants - going 'home' is important to many, regardless of whether or not the grown up child may perceive himself to have more than one home.

suggesting that the grown up child should see their PWC have to downgrade their housing so that they are removed but that it's OK 'cos they have a home with their NRP isn't acceptable to me - it ignores established ties, forces children to pick one parent over the other, that kind of thing.

Of course those of you who have shouted me down here are those who are happy to see the ex on her knees, aren't you?!

In our case, the NRP's hand was forced as was his children, they did not choose to remove their Dad from the family, that was the choice of the PWC, they had no choice about where they lived - especially as Dad was left with nothing but the car initially. In our case it's never been about what the children want or even need but always about what the PWC wants, even now, where one child is doing nothing as the Pwc has pushed her non academic child into doing A levels when that child was clearly going to struggle, and after only 3 months was asked to leave due to not coping with the courses and left feeling a failure, and is now being discouraged from getting a job because the CSA payments would stop.

My OH had no warning of how his life was going to change, and then things got worse as he discovererd at a later date household bills in his name she deliberately didn't pay that came back to haunt him long after their separation, and the lies she told to the CSA about him not paying when he paid regularly and ended up with thousands of pound worth of arrears for payments he'd already made.

So I know it sounds bitter, but if the PWC was to struggle financially due to the CSA payments stopping then so be it - in this case my OH has been struggling to build his life back up from nothing for years - at least the PWC will have some warning of the payments stopping, and can make provision for it. I wouldn't say we'd be happy to see the PWC struggling, but I am a great believer in what goes around comes around...

FBaby

I don't understand your position clearingout. Surely what happens afterwards is a matter of arrangements between adults. The pwc can decide to keep an extra bedroom for when the child comes back home but expect the child to contributes guid ways during this time ie. get a job rather than expecting his father to do so. Isn't that the basis for adulthood the fact that they can work and contribute for themselves rather than rely on their parents?

clearingout

FBaby wrote: »

I don't understand your position clearingout. Surely what happens afterwards is a matter of arrangements between adults. The pwc can decide to keep an extra bedroom for when the child comes back home but expect the child to contributes guid ways during this time ie. get a job rather than expecting his father to do so. Isn't that the basis for adulthood the fact that they can work and contribute for themselves rather than rely on their parents?

I don't disagree and I see all view points, honestly! My own experience is such that I have always had a home with my parents (well, just my mum now, sadly) and I hope that my children feel the same about me and that I am never forced into a situation where I have to ask them for money to be able to have them come 'home' 'cos if they have to contribute (for financial reasons, not moral ones), it becomes board and lodgings and not 'home'. I am not suggesting that my children (or indeed, myself back in the day) wouldn't be expected to work or contribute or that I feel I should be permitted to keep a roof over their heads through their father until the day they die, but I am suggesting that few are truly 'adult' at 18 and still need support, guidance and 'home' to make that full transition to adulthood.

There is a cost to keeping a room 'open' for an adult child. Not everyone can absorb this cost once the child no longer comes with benefits (literally!). I know child support has to stop but for some, keeping a 'home' for their children once they have left is impossible - I'm thinking lower paid workers reliant on Housing Benefit, for example, and that's very sad to me. I find it sadder that if you read these forums, many NRPs and their new partners are amused no end by the 'downfall' of the PWC once the children leave home. It just seems it's the children who lose out all round - because they will always be our children, no matter how old they are.

I do know that some PWC bring it on themselves - refuse to work, head in the sand. But there are others who work incredibly hard day in day out for very little and who will never climb a career ladder or earn mega bucks. It doesn't make them devoid of ambition or stupid or anything else, sometimes it's just the way life pans out. Believe me, my own life with the benefit of hindsight is not the one that it would have been had I followed the dreams I had before I met my now ex husband - and now with 3 young children to bring up and half way through my working life having made the u-turn, it is highly unlikely I will ever reach the career heights that I might have done had I done things differently. It irks me that some would, because they see things from my ex's view point, literally point and laugh and actually be happy that my old age will be a very frugal one,probably without the security for my children that my parents were able to offer me.

Marisco

clearingout wrote: »

I don't disagree and I see all view points, honestly! My own experience is such that I have always had a home with my parents (well, just my mum now, sadly) and I hope that my children feel the same about me and that I am never forced into a situation where I have to ask them for money to be able to have them come 'home' 'cos if they have to contribute (for financial reasons, not moral ones), it becomes board and lodgings and not 'home'. I am not suggesting that my children (or indeed, myself back in the day) wouldn't be expected to work or contribute or that I feel I should be permitted to keep a roof over their heads through their father until the day they die, but I am suggesting that few are truly 'adult' at 18 and still need support, guidance and 'home' to make that full transition to adulthood.

There is a cost to keeping a room 'open' for an adult child. Not everyone can absorb this cost once the child no longer comes with benefits (literally!). I know child support has to stop but for some, keeping a 'home' for their children once they have left is impossible - I'm thinking lower paid workers reliant on Housing Benefit, for example, and that's very sad to me. I find it sadder that if you read these forums, many NRPs and their new partners are amused no end by the 'downfall' of the PWC once the children leave home. It just seems it's the children who lose out all round - because they will always be our children, no matter how old they are.

I do know that some PWC bring it on themselves - refuse to work, head in the sand. But there are others who work incredibly hard day in day out for very little and who will never climb a career ladder or earn mega bucks. It doesn't make them devoid of ambition or stupid or anything else, sometimes it's just the way life pans out. Believe me, my own life with the benefit of hindsight is not the one that it would have been had I followed the dreams I had before I met my now ex husband - and now with 3 young children to bring up and half way through my working life having made the u-turn, it is highly unlikely I will ever reach the career heights that I might have done had I done things differently. It irks me that some would, because they see things from my ex's view point, literally point and laugh and actually be happy that my old age will be a very frugal one,probably without the security for my children that my parents were able to offer me.

I see what you're saying CO, but you have no idea what some go through with a PWC. We would have happily seen her in the gutter for what she did, TBH I didn't know women like her existed!! How anyone could be the way she was,(and still is, only it doesn't affect us now,) even in front of small kids!!! His daughter is anorexic because of that psychotic biatch!! I'll not go on, my blood pressure is high enough as it is, it goes off the scale when I think of what oh has been through at the hands of that witch!! :mad:

Bluemeanie_2

I do see what your saying Clearingout, but my position/opinion on it is, we have had to maintain a 3 bed house (or we will have by then) for 11 years, so the children can have 2 homes, without receiving ANY benefit for them, not even the pro rata share of the CB or TC for the two nights a week we have them, so if our PWC chooses to keep a bedroom open for their child, after the CSA has finsihed then that is up to them at their expense. Nothing to do with Hubby. His PWC also has two other children in a 3 bed house so there are 6 of them, so effectively her running costs per person are much lower than ours. So the way I see it, technically his kids' CS, CB and TC are contributing to their household, when she only has a 3 bed anyway, so there is no sympathy from my point of view for Hubby's PWC. They don't even get their own room at hers.

Bluemeanie_2

I think another thing to remember is, in the same way a PWC isn't necessarily a single mother (I recognise that men can be PWC's too but it is just easier for this purpose) out of choice and can often feel aggrieved at being left in this position, a lot of men are not NRP's by choice.
My Husband would have loved to have his kids full time when she kicked him out for another bloke, but wasn't allowed too by her. There was no point going to court for full custody as he had them overnight two nights a week and there is no way a court would give it to him (and in defence of her, it wouldn't have been in the children's best interests as she had been the main care giver).

I'm not actually saying it was wrong of her to end it with him, far from it. If she wasn't happy with him (he wasn't happy being with her but being a lazy bloke did not want to disrupt things) but just asking all to remember not all NRP's are that by choice, same way not all people are single mothers by choice.

clearingout

I don't think it's got anything to do with 'choice' over whether or not you become a single parent or an NRP or a PWC or however it is you define yourself post-separation/divorce. It's about parents working together for the sake of the children and if a few extra pounds means the difference between keeping the child's home secure for the next few years or not then I personally think there is huge value in that. I accept it's unlikely ever to happen in all but the most amicable of situations and I know that child maintenance can be a huge burden on the NRP, particularly those who aren't earning very well. But it doesn't stop me wanting it as an ideal. So many new partners seem so....angry...towards the ex that it worries me for my long term future. I wouldn't say I didn't do anything wrong in my marriage - I'm not perfect - but there are sure as hell two sides to our story and new partners seem to forget that. However, as marisco says, perhaps I don't really understand just how 'bad' some PWC can be.

I shall bow out!

Bluemeanie_2

You always seem to "bow out" when people don't agree with you!

Paying CSA for his kids is no burden at all to my husband nor do I resent the fact he pays it in the slightest, I resent the fact you think that. I am a decent earner, I don't need two incomes to run my house and have a good enough lifestyle on my wage alone, I choose to spend money on his kids when we have them. But after he has subsided her household for over 11 years, it will not be carrying on voluntarily like you suggest it should "for the sake of the kids". Yes it should be about the kids but you could go forever arguing that route. I would never dump my kids at someone else's house every singe weekend like his ex does, or never take my kids anywhere but then spend £80 on new trainers and buy them 4 wardrobes of Next clothes, as I view learning experiences and days out as more important, so don't see why that card should be played every time it suits by one side, when they don't follow it themselves in our case.

With regard to relationships I agree totally there are two sides. I don't care about my husbands past and have no interest at all in his past relationships or getting involved at all. Unfortunately, his ex didn't see his new relationship as none of her business and saw fit to stick her oar in where I was concerned when I came on the scene. I tried to never get involved what went on between her and my hubby, I have my own life, friends, job etc, no interest in getting involved in others arguments etc. This was despite the fact she had a 6 month old baby by someone else by then! The only reason I don't like her is because of the horrible things she has said and done to me for no reason. If I had split her and my hubby up then I could understand it, but like I say she had another baby before we had even met! Then I don't like the way she tried to use the kids as weapons when something didn't suit her whim. That wasn't fair to him.
So I'm not "angry" as such. I just don't think she is a very nice person!
And I personally believe that is why most NRPP's seem angry to you, because we don't like to see our partners being treated like pieces of carp by their exes! If she had just been an ordinary, civil kind of person to me then things would have been very different from my point of view. Unfortunately with her I can surmise that it was either a case of she didn't want him, but she didn't want anyone else to have him!

clearingout

Bluemeanie wrote: »

You always seem to "bow out" when people don't agree with you!

Paying CSA for his kids is no burden at all to my husband nor do I resent the fact he pays it in the slightest, I resent the fact you think that. I am a decent earner, I don't need two incomes to run my house and have a good enough lifestyle on my wage alone, I choose to spend money on his kids when we have them. But after he has subsided her household for over 11 years, it will not be carrying on voluntarily like you suggest it should "for the sake of the kids". Yes it should be about the kids but you could go forever arguing that route. I would never dump my kids at someone else's house every singe weekend like his ex does, or never take my kids anywhere but then spend £80 on new trainers and buy them 4 wardrobes of Next clothes, as I view learning experiences and days out as more important, so don't see why that card should be played every time it suits by one side, when they don't follow it themselves in our case.

With regard to relationships I agree totally there are two sides. I don't care about my husbands past and have no interest at all in his past relationships or getting involved at all. Unfortunately, his ex didn't see his new relationship as none of her business and saw fit to stick her oar in where I was concerned when I came on the scene. I tried to never get involved what went on between her and my hubby, I have my own life, friends, job etc, no interest in getting involved in others arguments etc. This was despite the fact she had a 6 month old baby by someone else by then! The only reason I don't like her is because of the horrible things she has said and done to me for no reason. If I had split her and my hubby up then I could understand it, but like I say she had another baby before we had even met! Then I don't like the way she tried to use the kids as weapons when something didn't suit her whim. That wasn't fair to him.
So I'm not "angry" as such. I just don't think she is a very nice person!
And I personally believe that is why most NRPP's seem angry to you, because we don't like to see our partners being treated like pieces of carp by their exes! If she had just been an ordinary, civil kind of person to me then things would have been very different from my point of view. Unfortunately with her I can surmise that it was either a case of she didn't want him, but she didn't want anyone else to have him!

LOL! Yes, perhaps I do bow out if people don't agree. Fatal flaw in my personality, perhaps?! Or maybe I just feel I have nothing useful left to say on the issue. The rest of what you say is fair enough - there is always a 'back' story and it is usually the case that when things aren't 'fair', we are on here trying to deal with it. I accept that reasonable separations/divorces don't make these forums.

But what I would say is that you may be lucky enough to earn well and have enough to support yourself and your family. For some of us, divorce has meant more scrimping around for money than we could ever have imagined. That within that we fight for money from the ex who, on the surface at least, appears to be OK for money, I personally think is reasonable. My own standard of living is my own business but when I have children who can't continue swimming lessons or who I worry about being able to feed by the end of the month, it's not about being 'greedy' or anything else PWC are tarred with often on this forum. It's simply about trying to give our children a decent standard of living.

Bowing out...again!

PreludeForTimeFeelers

I think there comes a point in every discussion where some people refuse to see the other side's point of view, so sometimes 'bowing out' is the only sensible thing to do.