csa grrrrrr

FBaby

When I did my business degree, 12 hours was considered full-time because as we were clearly told, for each hour of lesson, you were expected to study 2 at home. The course work involved a lot of reading, doing research, preparing presentations etc.... I didn't apply the 2 for 1 hours to the letter, but I certainly remember my week being pretty full. Saying that, it was a Masters, so I would assume quite more demanding?

In regards to being on csa1, my understanding is that it doesn't mean the nrpp wages support the step-child, it means that as she works, she is expected to contribute towards the household bills, hence leaving some more for the nrp to contribute towards his child. Surelyno working nrpp would expect the nrp to contribute 100% towards the bill?

jarhead66

I am stuck on CSA1 and will not let my g/f move in with me as we are better off having two seperate houses, As if she moved in with me my payments would increase, also the amount of hassle that my ex has caused my g/f why should she contribute to her beer fund?
It also made me laugh yesterday, when the prime minister said that he promoted marriage when CSA1 (which his party introduced) discourages marriage, You can get married to a N.R.P. but it will cost you so much to support his ex who has harrassed you for the last 11 yrs.
The whole CSA1 scheme is all anti- family and anti- marriage, its not in the P.W.C. interest to let the N.R.P. have his kids over night as she will loose money, also as my ex said to me whats the point of seeing them if you have no money to take them out!! They then take that much off you that you can't afford to goto court for access, Then David Cameron calls us runaway dads, deadbeat dads,and worse than drink drivers!!

I can bet if you contact the csa on monday and ask about the it going up to age 20 i bet they try and blame the govement, but as i stated before it the govemnet who goes to gov dept like CSA and child benefit for advice, Did any N.R.P's get letters asking what they thought as this does effect us?? i think not!! They have these consultation papers but they are just a P.R. exercise as most of it has been decided!!

**Patty**

Fbaby...from the people i know that have done a Masters, that seems about right. (12 a week plus upto 24 at home)

However....CSA isn't applicable for degrees as it's classed as Uni. Unless someone can enlighten us as i know our local college has a Uni affliation, but whether you can actually do a degree there, i have no idea. I always thought you went to Uni for degrees (or the OU)? I may learn something here:cool:

How it applies in my case is this:

4 children to support. Eldest is 18 at college for 12 hours a week. He works 24 hours in a *part-time* job. My OH is liable for CM.

My DD, 17, is doing A levels. She hopes to go on to Uni.

The 18 yr old is my OH's from his 1st marriage. DD is mine from my 1st marriage. With me so far?

IF.....18yr old decides to do another business studies course (for 12 hours) next september for the 3rd year.....then OH will still be liable for CM.

Yet DD.....will get nothing if she goes off to Uni.

So the 18 yr old can do course, after course, after course & still receive CM....yet DD's stops.

After 4/5 years of courses....they'll probably have similar levels of education and yet not similar levels of support. I don't think that's fair.

Marisco

Just as an aside (and to satisfy my curiosity! ) does anyone know why college courses are eligible for CSA and uni isn't? Is it because most uni students usually go to uni away from home?

365days

Maybe all PWC's should throw their 19 year old's out of the house and tell them that their only option is to fend for themselves or go live with NRP. Afterall 19 year olds don't need parental help..... right?

clearingout

because uni students are eligible for funding in their ownright (although even that is based on their parent's income)?

**Patty**

365days wrote: »

Maybe all PWC's should throw their 19 year old's out of the house and tell them that their only option is to fend for themselves or go live with NRP. Afterall 19 year olds don't need parental help..... right?

Maybe because after my mother doing exactly that.......I wish to do the opposite for my children

**Patty**

clearingout wrote: »

because uni students are eligible for funding in their ownright (although even that is based on their parent's income)?

*smiling because the irony of it all*

But it's based on the income of the PWC's household. So...in my case:D (as above) my DD would lose out on funding due to the wages my husband earns (he's not on megabucks :rotfl:) whereas the fact that he pays out more in CM for 1 child than i receive for 2 (see my other thread) isn't taken into account.

Vicious circles anyone? :rotfl:

We're never going to get a one-size-fits-all system.....there are too many variables in everyone's families but i think rather than fix the massive loopholes in the system......they do seem to be plugging the minor leaks

PreludeForTimeFeelers

I think some basic points are being lost amid hyperbole and exaggeration here.

No-one is suggesting child maintenance is still paid at 20 - ongoing maintenance will stop at 20 regardless of circumstances. It will only be paid at 19 if the child is still living at home and doing certain types of educational courses (in line with child benefit).

It's not the CSA making things up either, they've changed their definitions in line with child benefit - nor are there any plans to change this. Some of the quotes here saying 'you'll have to pay beyond 20' are nothing better than scaremongering.

Something else that possibly needs to be spelled out is that this will also apply to relevant other children, ie the children living with the NRP in their current household.

shegirl

**Patty** wrote: »

It seems that one of the bones of contention would be this issue of *full-time but not-full-time* study. A 12 hour a week college course to me, is not full-time.
If 1 HMG dept can class 30hours a week as full time (as HMRC do) then why is it others (CSA) don't? However, thats a political issue & not for here.
When it comes to the point that a child of 18/19 is doing 12 hours at college but yet working 20+ *part-time*........then any reasonable person would question the eligibility for Child Maintenance surely? I don't object to any of our children gaining qualifications that would see them do better in life.....but on 12 hours a week? That's not enough to enable them to do so!


As an aside, regarding the supporting of children......I would guess (purely because i don't think its in the thread) that His Wife's Husband has an Old Rules case. It's unreasonable to ask that her wages alone should support her children when half of them are taken into account for her husband's assessment.

Because aswell as the 12 hours in college itself they would be expected (required) to do work outside of classes.

What makes you think 12 hours a week isn't enough to enable them to do better in life? Since when has education needed to be full time in college or any other institution to be of any worth?