CSA & overtime?

aussiesbird

Have just found an e-petition on 10 Downing Street website

"the income of the person receiving maintenance should be means tested when calculating payments so as to stop extortionate payments being given by low-income non-resident parents to higher income recipients".
Have added my name to that one.
Take a look you may find one that relates to your problem.

http://search.number-10.gov.uk/kbroker/number10/number10/search.lsim?ha=1157&sr=0&sf=&qt=csa&nh=10&cs=iso-8859-1&sc=number10&sm=0&mt=1&to=0

kelloggs36

TBH the only way to get the OT reviewed is by Judicial Review which has to be done vua a solicitor (Foreshaws, Stephen Lawson) but could be costly. The argument that is likely to come back is that CSA don't take all the OT money away, only the relevant proportion, so your children will get the benefit of the remainder - if he didn't earn it, which he doesn't always, you have to budget for it. There is no way that some income can be set aside and ignored for CSA just like Income Tax - it all has to be counted. The only exceptions to this is the rare amount such as once a year which is not expected and not representitive. If OT is regular, whether guaranteed or not, it has to be counted.

aussiesbird

kelloggs36 wrote: »

TBH the only way to get the OT reviewed is by Judicial Review which has to be done vua a solicitor (Foreshaws, Stephen Lawson) but could be costly. The argument that is likely to come back is that CSA don't take all the OT money away, only the relevant proportion, so your children will get the benefit of the remainder - if he didn't earn it, which he doesn't always, you have to budget for it. There is no way that some income can be set aside and ignored for CSA just like Income Tax - it all has to be counted. The only exceptions to this is the rare amount such as once a year which is not expected and not representitive. If OT is regular, whether guaranteed or not, it has to be counted.

Not really what I wanted to hear but thanks kelloggs. So do you think that getting the Parliamentary Ombudsman involved is a waste of time or is he for something completely different?
Sorry to sound so dumb! LOL
I understand what you are saying that O/T has to be taken into account but I am challenging this on the grounds that they have a duty of care to both sets of children and my kids WILL suffer as a result of this increase. They won't be able to go on school trips, birthday parties will go, Christmas will be awful(with 5 kids to buy for) etc etc. Do you think I have any sort of a fighting chance? (be gentle on me LOL)

Mr_Green_Genes

aussiesbird wrote: »

Not really what I wanted to hear but thanks kelloggs. So do you think that getting the Parliamentary Ombudsman involved is a waste of time or is he for something completely different?
Sorry to sound so dumb! LOL
I understand what you are saying that O/T has to be taken into account but I am challenging this on the grounds that they have a duty of care to both sets of children and my kids WILL suffer as a result of this increase. They won't be able to go on school trips, birthday parties will go, Christmas will be awful(with 5 kids to buy for) etc etc. Do you think I have any sort of a fighting chance? (be gentle on me LOL)

The P.O. can only get involved a) if there has been a failure of administration and b) if the case is referred by your MP. Having said that, failure of administration is almost axiomatic with the CSA given how incompetent they are, all you have to do is wait for it to manifest itself. Then just send the proof to your MP and there you are.

kelloggs36

Yes Mr GG is right. You can try and argue your case, but I don't think that they will buy it as they will argue that your children are actually benefitting from the OT by default - as only a proportion goes to Child Support, the rest remains for your use and how you choose to spend it is up to you. The other side of the coin is that the other child will lose out unfairly by not allowing it - as you know PWC income is ignored, so regardless of whether she can afford to keep the child/ren herself is not relevant - whatever income the father has should be counted for the benefit of ALL children.

aussiesbird

kelloggs36 wrote: »

Yes Mr GG is right. You can try and argue your case, but I don't think that they will buy it as they will argue that your children are actually benefitting from the OT by default - as only a proportion goes to Child Support, the rest remains for your use and how you choose to spend it is up to you. The other side of the coin is that the other child will lose out unfairly by not allowing it - as you know PWC income is ignored, so regardless of whether she can afford to keep the child/ren herself is not relevant - whatever income the father has should be counted for the benefit of ALL children.

I hear what you are saying kelloggs and deep down I know we are probably banging our heads against a brick wall but, you know, we have to try. We have to be able to look back and be able to say "we tried everything and left no stone unturned".
One thing that does baffle me and I don't know if you will be able to cast any light on it but why do the CSA not look at the PWC income? I would've thought that would play just as an important role.

kelloggs36

They used to include the PWC income in the old rules, but because of the complexity of it all, they made it much simpler and excluded it. Partly because by virtue of the fact that the PWC has the children they already contribute to the cost of bringing up the children. The old system could be seen as being fairer in some cases, but not all. Do you know what the assessment would be under the old rules? Would you be better off or not? Under the old rules there was no allowance in the Exempt income for any children of the new partner which there now is which reduces the assessment under the current rules. If you want me to do a proper comparison, I can do if you PM me?? I would need info regarding gross income, pension contributions, housing costs and if there is a mortgage, the interest rate applicable, your income if you have one, child benefit, tax credits etc. I won't be offended if you don't want to, as it is a lot of info, but you could see what the difference would be.

aussiesbird

Thanks for that kelloggs, I will get all the info together and PM you later. Can you still work it out if we don't have any info on ex's assets/income etc?

kelloggs36

Yes but it won't be as accurate - I could do an assumption of earnings but it would be easier to assume that she is in receipt of WFTC and has no assessable income this would give you the absolute max figure that your hubby would have had to pay.

aussiesbird

kelloggs36 wrote: »

Yes but it won't be as accurate - I could do an assumption of earnings but it would be easier to assume that she is in receipt of WFTC and has no assessable income this would give you the absolute max figure that your hubby would have had to pay.

Sorry I haven't been in touch kelloggs, I have been unwell. I don't think that the calculation would give me any useful info as we know both she and her hubby now work full time and she puts 4 of her children into childcare. She has opened up her shop and purchased a brand new car!

Still waiting some kind of response to letters I have sent, will update you when I hear.