CSA payments question

clearingout

greenstreetprince wrote: »

Thanx, there is alot of stuff which is very very wrong about the way maintenance payments are worked out or even handled!

you don't have to use the CSA so payments can be handled any which way you're able to decide between you!

as for the 'it's not fair call', I agree on the tax credits thing but by the same token, it's not fair an NRP can move in with someone who has children and have maintenance payments to his biological children reduced as a result. I suspect that for many, this fact more or less evens up the score and any difference in maintenance amounts to a few pounds, nothing more. It is not worth getting hooked up on - you have a legal obligation to pay maintenance so trying to acheive that with the least amount of animosity and annoyance will ultimately be best for all concerned.

fannyanna

clearingout wrote: »

you don't have to use the CSA so payments can be handled any which way you're able to decide between you!

as for the 'it's not fair call', I agree on the tax credits thing but by the same token, it's not fair an NRP can move in with someone who has children and have maintenance payments to his biological children reduced as a result. I suspect that for many, this fact more or less evens up the score and any difference in maintenance amounts to a few pounds, nothing more. It is not worth getting hooked up on - you have a legal obligation to pay maintenance so trying to acheive that with the least amount of animosity and annoyance will ultimately be best for all concerned.

In this case money for one of the biological children is being taken away to pay for the other biological child. That's the part that's madness.

But you're absolutely spot on that the system is flawed in general and on the whole nearly everyone that uses the system will face unfairness at some point.

clearingout

fannyanna wrote: »

In this case money for one of the biological children is being taken away to pay for the other biological child. That's the part that's madness.

But you're absolutely spot on that the system is flawed in general and on the whole nearly everyone that uses the system will face unfairness at some point.

I agree on the biological children - my comments were meant to refer to non-biological children (although I know that we are discussing a biological child here). I have no issue with payments being reduced to support 'new' biological children but I do have an issue with a system that puts non-biological children on a level with the biological ones. Unfortunately, what we have is a system that just sees 'children' (probably not unfair when you put it like that) and tries to be fair to all of them. I do think that for the majority claiming tax credits, the reduction one way and the gain the other more or less evens the score. Where it is perhaps more problematic is where the PWC has a high income and the NRP doesn't - although we then get into the argument of new partners being forced to pay for children that don't belong to them as they are higher earners and effectively wipe out any tax credits that mum might get.

It's imperfect but at least for the majority, some maintenance is paid. I dread to think what would happen without it.

sarahjayne1977

greenstreetprince wrote: »

hmmmm, interesting point about the tax credits, but if we claim the tax credits on my OH's behalf then that doesnt count as income for me, or does it?

My hubby is a NRP for one child and we have 2 together. Tax credits are classed as income!! Really annoys me as if we didn't have our kids we wouldn't get tax credits, so tax credits is my kids money!
If your the main wage earner ie earn the most.They take full amount of tax credits as earnings. If your partner earns more then you they take 50% of amount.
Our tax credits is in my name but its a joint claim you will have to send a copy of award to CSA.
Amount of maintance will be:-
Your net wages + tax credits weekly.
If you have one child you get to keep 15% of total. then whats left your ex gets 15% for your child.

This is CSA2 dunnno which one your on.

fannyanna

clearingout wrote: »

It's imperfect but at least for the majority, some maintenance is paid. I dread to think what would happen without it.

Very true.

greenstreetprince

clearingout wrote: »

you don't have to use the CSA so payments can be handled any which way you're able to decide between you!

as for the 'it's not fair call', I agree on the tax credits thing but by the same token, it's not fair an NRP can move in with someone who has children and have maintenance payments to his biological children reduced as a result. I suspect that for many, this fact more or less evens up the score and any difference in maintenance amounts to a few pounds, nothing more. It is not worth getting hooked up on - you have a legal obligation to pay maintenance so trying to acheive that with the least amount of animosity and annoyance will ultimately be best for all concerned.

I didnt have a choice, my ex didn't even bother to discuss with me and went straight to the CSA, I got a call from someone at the CSA who treated me like a criminal and spoke to me as though I was refusing to give anything to my child.

In fact my solicitor had even written to her solicitor saying we would like to contribute but the other side never replied regarding that issue.

I was literally threatened by CSA to give details of my employment. quite rightly i did not appreciate being spoken to like an animal so hang up on them every time they rang afterwards and let them find out for themselves where i worked.

I really dont think its fair for a father to be giving out a proportion of his salary and not be able to see a shred of evidence to say that its being spent on his child. I may only be paying £104 per month but I seriously dont see much of it being spent on my child.

I wouldnt be playing the "its not fair" card if i really did not feel that way

Wyre

That £104 has to pay half their food, clothing, heating, water as well as school trips, clubs and so on. It doesn't go far!

BitterAndTwisted

You don't see much of it being spent on your child? How far do you think £104 a months goes? It's not just their food and clothing: they need a roof over their head as well.


Come back in a couple of years and tell us how you can provide for your next child for less that £24 a week.

emsywoo123

greenstreetprince wrote: »

I really dont think its fair for a father to be giving out a proportion of his salary and not be able to see a shred of evidence to say that its being spent on his child. I may only be paying £104 per month but I seriously dont see much of it being spent on my child.

What I do personally is wait for my maintenance to hit my account , then draw it out and burn it while dancing around cackling.

Oh no, I don't.

That's right. I spend it on providing food, warmth, shelter, water and other such mod cons for OUR children.

I must remember to take some photographic evidence of the above.

greenstreetprince

well when I see my ex sending my child over to me with the same pair of shoes every week for the past 5 months, when my childs socks stink and he says mummy has made him wear the same pair all week, when his hair isn't even washed properly 90% of the time....

yet at the same time she amazingly has the latest smartphone always, an ipad, a 3d home cinema system...and this is all on benefits (she doesnt have a job) and resides in a council house, then yes, I have a right to say that it isnt being spent on my child.

oh, and she doesnt have gas and electricity bills either, apparently thats part of her rental package, which is all paid for by the council!