Will I get my money?

Perscat

My son's father pays me maintenance for him monthly via the CSA. He pays a higher rate as it took them 10 + years to catch up with him and when they did he was offered the higher rate for the duration of maintenance or account for and pay the arrears from the previous years. This month my payment came through at a third of normal. Right before xmas too!
I contacted the CSA and was told they had no idea about it and nothing had been changed. They said they would be contacting him to chase it up. A week later I called again to see if anything was happening. No attempt to contact him was listed on the file and the advisor said there seemed to be a request for a change of circmstances pending, but no supporting evidence yet.
Last I heard he wasn't answering the phone and a 7 day warning letter to pay would be sent. Am I likely to get the rest of the payment? What action will they take if he just refuses to pay?

kevin137

If he is on a DEO, and had a change in circumstances for the month in question, IE was sick, then he will of earnt less and will possibly of fallen into his protected income level meaning his employer could not legally take the money.

This will be taken in the future by his employer with no intervention should he be back onto normal earning levels...

Is there any reason he would not of worked...? Do you know if he was off sick...? Extended holiday or something similar...?

You will need to chase it up with the CSA, but it could take some time...

wayne0

Perscat wrote: »

Will I get my money

surely you mean your son's money?....

kevin137

wayne0 wrote: »

surely you mean your son's money?....

No i think she means her money... It is payable to her as a contribution to bills in her name... Or should she put gas electric tv license etc in her childs name...

This is a mistake many NRP's make, she pays ALL the bills, so it is her money to spend not the childs... If you understand that, and it is a good PWC, then this should never cause problems, but it is bitter twisted NRP's and PWC that make the wrong distinction of how or what money is for...

You are right only as far as it is for the benefit of the child in his/her upbringing, everything after that is none of your business once paid according to the law...

And i had been an NRP for a long time, so don't think i am taking sides here. Just trying to point out that it is nothing to do with the NRP what the money is spent on. If you have concerns that the welfare of the child is being ignored despite the payments, then that is a matter for child services not the CSA

wayne0

kevin137 wrote: »

You are right only as far as it is for the benefit of the child in his/her upbringing,

benefit the child in upbringing... exactly...

the way i read the whole post was that she wants HER money...

from what the post states: he pays a higher rate (40%?)

maybe the arrears have been cleared? maybe as you stated he has been on low hours so not enough wages...

kevin137

Either way, it is HER money, not the childs...

kevin137

And if you want to be argumentative about this then i will explain in a different way wayne0

Arrears are owed, now this could be any amount, but the CSA work things slightly differently in that you do not clear arrears 1st...

Personally i would see it that ALL money owed is paid 1st, and any money due is tagged onto the end of the arrears meaning that the arrears are always being added, only when ALL the arrears are paid then you are paying current obligation...

On that basis, SHE is owed the money as SHE has already paid all the bills so it is in fact HER money and not the childs. When and only when the account has NO arrears, then you may well be able to say it is the childs money... But it is still her that decides what it is spent on...

Or do you think that owing the money to the child is better, and that when he pays the child the child then contributes to the bills that she has already paid...

Perscat

Thanks Kevin. As we don't have any contact whatsoever I have no idea on what could have changed or why.

It's my money in the sense that I am the one who has to pay rent and council tax so my son has a home, shopping so he has food and clothes, gas so he has heat etc etc or do you think a child of 15 should have to be legally responsible for these things Wayne? It was also me who had to find a nice chunk of that elsewhere this month with no warning or explanation , so yes, it's my money.

PreludeForTimeFeelers

Perscat wrote: »

the advisor said there seemed to be a request for a change of circmstances pending, but no supporting evidence yet.

It sounds as though there's a reason for the short payment - it could be a reduction in his hours, he could be off sick, or he could have changed jobs. There may be another child in his household now.

Either way, until he provides evidence of the change of circs, or it can be verified by a third-party, the assessment won't be changed.

anonx_2

kevin i think you forgot about the tax payer, she doesnt mention she has a job (i dont know why shes not working) its not her money that pays her bills or for her child, its the tax payers money, so she her self isnt paying never mind the dad

shoe*diva79

anonx wrote: »

kevin i think you forgot about the tax payer, she doesnt mention she has a job (i dont know why shes not working) its not her money that pays her bills or for her child, its the tax payers money, so she her self isnt paying never mind the dad

She does not mention if she works or not as its not relevent. The father of her children is legally and morally obligated to contribute towards the cost of their children.

For all you know she could be disabled and unable to work.

Assume makes a !!! out of u (and me!) so maybe ask the OP for facts before slating her?