Unbelievable CSA / DWP Story.

kevin137

WYSPECIAL wrote: »

I think they originally started using CB as an indicator to establish who was PWC and who was NRP in disputed cases. They decided that PWC is person getting CB

Which is a crock of sh*t really...

You could have COURT ORDERED SHARED CUSTODY... And by definition that would be alternate weeks and still be paying CSA...

And the court would have NO say in it...

And how it is worked out is very very very simple...

If you BOTH put a claim in for CB then it is as simple as WHO applies 1st...! That is of course, until the female with care says that she has primary custody as the male works... And then you are screwed as this will be taken as fact...!

skibadee

Where can I look up legislation on this.....does anyone know? I'm prepared for a long read.....we are currently in the QC left further education in Feb., but CB still being claimed so CM still payable.

cosmic-dust

kevin137 wrote: »

If you BOTH put a claim in for CB then it is as simple as WHO applies 1st...! That is of course, until the female with care says that she has primary custody as the male works... And then you are screwed as this will be taken as fact...!

Rubbish!

If you can't decide who should get Child Benefit

If you and the other person have both made a claim, you might not be able to decide between you who should get Child Benefit. In this case, the Child Benefit Office may have to decide who to pay it to. They will contact you for further information.

The decision on who'll get Child Benefit won't necessarily be the same for tax credits - if you're getting them.

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/childbenefit/start/claiming/more-than-one-claim.htm

And Child Tax credits

If you can't agree who'll claim
If you can't agree who'll get the Child Tax Credit, both of you should claim for the child. Then the Tax Credit Office will decide for you. They'll contact both of you so that they can work out who has main responsibility for the child. They will consider things that include the number of days the child lives with you, and where they keep most of their clothes and toys.

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/taxcredits/start/who-qualifies/children/children-taxcredits.htm#4

kevin137

Really...? Search shared care and child benefit...

What that says is nothing to do with court ordered shared care...

clearingout

Marisco wrote: »

What the hell is wrong with some PWC's? Do they expect the NRP to support them for life? PWC's know when CM will finish, why don't they make provision for the loss? It's the same with CB and CTC, how many times have we seen people whinging that they are going to lose £xxx when the "child" reaches a certain age!! It's like Xmas, everyone knows it's coming and most know when it is!!!:D

I don't think it's about not knowing or not being able to plan for it, it's about the fact that the child (usually) doesn't get banished from the family home on the day they stop receiving benefits and thus the costs are still exactly the same to the PWC but without the benefit of the additional payments. You can know it's coming and you can try to plan for it but if you're already working full-time, and maxed out to capacity with mortgages etc., it's still going to be difficult.

Of course, that's where the 'I left home at 18 and paid my own way' arguments come in and I shall decline to comment further as we all have different experiences where this is concerned!

WYSPECIAL

Marisco wrote: »

What the hell is wrong with some PWC's? Do they expect the NRP to support them for life?

Yes some do.

Suddenly CM, CB and CTC all dry up at once and they face the prospect of having to work for money but haven't done anything to prepare themselves for the job market that they have been out of for years.

Must be a right shock.

Marisco

clearingout wrote: »

I don't think it's about not knowing or not being able to plan for it, it's about the fact that the child (usually) doesn't get banished from the family home on the day they stop receiving benefits and thus the costs are still exactly the same to the PWC but without the benefit of the additional payments. You can know it's coming and you can try to plan for it but if you're already working full-time, and maxed out to capacity with mortgages etc., it's still going to be difficult.

Of course, that's where the 'I left home at 18 and paid my own way' arguments come in and I shall decline to comment further as we all have different experiences where this is concerned!

But surely the "child" will either be working or on JSA, if the PWC doesn't take "board" off them then that is down to them. A PWC has had years to prepare for the money stopping. It might be difficult, but you don't know how difficult it might have been for the NRP for years either. Just because the CM has stopped it doesn't mean that the NRP stops supporting the "child", it just means the PWC doesn't get it.

nicky3

Re CB & CSA link, ICE have not conceded to this point and they dont need to, as it was conceded in my CSA appeal. My child support ceased (on appeal) on 27th May 2010, but child benefit was paid up until mid August.

Child Benefit as the deciding factor in the case of EQUAL shared care between parents, when this is the case, legislation states that child support be awarded to the parent with child benefit.....I will try and dig out the legislation. Whether there is something else to counter this, I do not know, but I do believe that my successful appeal PROVES that the CSA used child benefit as the EXCUSE to charge me child support, when in fact the law did not facilitate it.

nicky3

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2001/155/regulation/8/made

this is what gave me my answers (child had come to live with me but CSA wanted me to keep paying cos ex declined to give up his CB right)

a key point however is...2 b (ii)if neither parent is in receipt of child benefit for that child etc etc. I believe that this proves that child benefit is not the sole indicator to an obligation for child support purposes, but that the CSA use it as such.

I had around 8 CSA complaints officers insisting that "Legislation dictated" that I must pay until August when legislation dictated NO SUCH THING....Ice are only involved as the CSA have refused to concede that they either abuse or can't understand the legislation. Despite the instant decision by their own appeals team on receipt of the fact to reverse.

kevin137

That makes sense upto a point...

However there is a case on here recently where a father was charged CSA on a shared care case, and the mother was awarded CB.

Now this may not sound so strange... Until you read that the court paperwork showed him as the primary carer....!

Forgive me if i am wrong, but does the court, i.e. judge, not act on behalf of the secretary of state...? Thereby making the decision on his behalf only to over riled by a 2nd rate government system, for deciding financial issues...