csa grrrrrr

PreludeForTimeFeelers

his_wife wrote: »

Prelude out of interest, do you work for the csa??

No, I'm currently attached to the DWP.

spiritsfree

I find this situation extremely unfair. As one who has had to fight for fairness with the CSA and "The ex from hell", to bring this in at such short notice, ( and the media don`t seem to have picked up on it ) it`s going to shock a lot of people who have already planned for the day that their "responsibilities" of CHILD maintenance ends. I`m not saying that parents don`t and shouldn`t help their adult children out after the enforced CHILD period if they can, however that is a matter of choice and circumstances. This is such an underhanded way of enforcement because of the jobs market, bankers, and politicians failures. Other situations where changes are made, such as pensions,retirement dates, benefits etc get a period of warning in order to plan ahead,... this is outrageous !!....and just a way of the government passing the buck with a "Back door, slip it in policy", that will generally make those struggling families despair, angry and mortified !!! In my old age I am fortunately comfortable, however my heart goes out to those that aren`t, and not to allow any forward planning in this situation is not only sneaky, but morally wrong ? It`s not societies fault that bankers and politicians got it totally wrong, however "society" is being penalised because of it, and this seems to be another way of passing the buck to the innocent ??? Life is tough, and full of up`s and downs, however the "downs" are now much lower than they have ever been....this policy will just feel like a good kicking to some that are already well and truly bruised ??

If they had given, say, 2 years notice, then I`m sure they would have had a backlash, but at least there would have been some meaningful discussion and warning for those dragged into this ??....and, it appears that the word CSA is so draining mentally and physically. For me, a new system of "defined" court orders could be much more beneficial on both sides, as well as saving money on a system that is not only incredibly flawed, complicated and misleading, but also the people employed in it. When the CSA can overrule a court, ignore court decisions, and is above the rule of law something is radically wrong ??

"Just my honest opinion"....from experience !!

PreludeForTimeFeelers

To be honest, the CSA *do* make proposals to legislative changes available online - check out the threads that I've started. I'm pretty sure that this 'up to 20' change was mentioned in one of them over a year ago.

his_wife

smokey, for what its worth its the second time ours ended too! We have counted down to this day for 6 years, we have battled not to go to bankrupt, so the end in sight was a breathing space for us, we could of given sd a couple of pounds every week, and then got on top of some bills.


However, we are back in the same position now as , we have been for years, no i am not blaming sd or the csa for the mess we are in, however,,,, its certainly not making our life any easier now!!

Spiritsfree, i have said somewhere before about this, i think its a great big con by the government to juggle the unemployment figures. Of course the ex is going to encourage sd to stay in college, she stands to loose way too much money otherwise.

I personally think, the 20 ruling, should only apply for children who are 17 now, rather than those who turned 20 in september onwards.

Prelude, as much as i have seen posts on here for over a year, regarding the 20 rule, nobody knew who it would apply too.

As for the csa, they are an absolute joke, they tell the pwc one thing the nrp another.

wayne0

his_wife wrote: »

it wont close smokey. csa were told not to talk about it, untill it was literally on top of everyone, Our case finished last wk, it starts again next wk.

Good news for pwc, not so good for nrp

i thought there had to be 13 weeks clear between the two cases?

his_wife

never thought of it that way, but, since for some people it wont be closing, would, it not be, just a continuation. I suppose 13 weeks breathing space would make a great deal of difference for us

FBaby

his wife, I don't think any one lacks empathy to how it must feel to be run free and suddenly find out that you are not. Like most families, I assume you started counting how much more disposable income you would soon have and made plans accordingly.

I sympathise with anyone who sees their plan shattered or postponed through not fault of theirs. My issue has been with the perceived resentment you seem to have that your partner has to pay a large amount in csa which prevents your family from the lifestyle you wish for them. You keep referring to you struggling financially, your daughter having to give up going to college because you couldn't afford it for her, yet in another thread, you mention losing child benefit because I believe of your husband salary being over the threshold. You also mention that you work, so surely you can't be struggling that badly.

Sorry if I got it all wrong, but things like 'we've been waiting for 6 years to stop paying csa' makes me feel that the issue really is with paying the amount assessed by csa rather than just the issue of the extension.

his_wife

fbaby, i appreciate as to how it reads, yes my husband earns a large income, he pays his ex a substantial amount per month for their daughter. So i am loosing my child benefit on the basis of his income. He also pays the fourty percent tax. So as an higher earner, he gets penalised every direction.

I work part time, i do not earn a lot , i earn enough to do the weekly shop, nothing more.

My children have never had a lavish lifestyle, we have only ever made ends meet so to speak. However, because of my husbands income, my children get penalised again.

He is expected to support two families, on his income, yes its in the higher bracket, however, take off his csa payments, my now loss in cb, i can not get more hours. So yes, i am annoyed over it, as my children loose out on every system. I dont work to support my children i work to support my household.

When my husband was with his ex partner, they lived in a street house, on minimum wage, so it isnt as if his child is used to a lavish upbringing.

If his child was doing a third year course, i would be more than willing to have no quible, however, she isnt.

If the csa amount was reduced from his income, we would actually be eligible for wt credits etc,,,,, this new ruling, with child benefit, etc doesnt take into account csa payments. So from my point of view, my children are loosing out, as its more money we dont have a month.

his_wife

sorry if that reads bolshy, its not meant that way.

shegirl

his_wife wrote: »

fbaby, i appreciate as to how it reads, yes my husband earns a large income, he pays his ex a substantial amount per month for their daughter. So i am loosing my child benefit on the basis of his income. He also pays the fourty percent tax. So as an higher earner, he gets penalised every direction.

I work part time, i do not earn a lot , i earn enough to do the weekly shop, nothing more.

My children have never had a lavish lifestyle, we have only ever made ends meet so to speak. However, because of my husbands income, my children get penalised again.

He is expected to support two families, on his income, yes its in the higher bracket, however, take off his csa payments, my now loss in cb, i can not get more hours. So yes, i am annoyed over it, as my children loose out on every system. I dont work to support my children i work to support my household.

When my husband was with his ex partner, they lived in a street house, on minimum wage, so it isnt as if his child is used to a lavish upbringing.

If his child was doing a third year course, i would be more than willing to have no quible, however, she isnt.

If the csa amount was reduced from his income, we would actually be eligible for wt credits etc,,,,, this new ruling, with child benefit, etc doesnt take into account csa payments. So from my point of view, my children are loosing out, as its more money we dont have a month.

Really? You're saying that if your higher rate tax paying husband had the maintenance deducted from his assessable income that both yours and his joint income BEFORE tax would be less than £16,000 a year?