Will I get my money?

PreludeForTimeFeelers

**Patty** wrote: »

Why does he pay by SO?
I always thought the preferred method of collection was by DD.

Has your case ever had clerical issues OP?

The preferred method of payment is DD, but if the NRP set up the SO a while ago, and payments are coming in on time and in full (well, before this last payment anyways), then the CSA will generally let the NRP carry on paying that way.

Perscat

I only know what the phone advisor told me. Since they caught up with him its always been full and on time.

DUTR

**Patty** wrote: »

Why does he pay by SO?
I always thought the preferred method of collection was by DD.

Has your case ever had clerical issues OP?

Like it or not the preffered method is SO, DD is the 2nd option .

UsetheFORCE

Sensemaya wrote: »

anonx

Why should she mention she has a job, indeed why should she justify herself full stop, when she is asking a question?

Can you READ the sentence I've highlighted? What makes you think she's not working?

What business is it of yours?



Yeah get all PWCs working so the NRPs don't have to bother paying for THEIR children.

I for one have worked all my life since leaving full time education.

wayne,anonx and force- you are all idiots once again jumping to conclusions which don't concern you. But just so long as you can come and have a bash at PWCs on here that's OK and no doubt it makes you feel better for a while.

I say this: Pay up and shut up!

I do pay, did I write that I didn't??? ALL PARENTS (that means PWC and NRP) should PAY, claiming benefits and having an easy life... 1 child single parent will get 15k+ plus NET a year, they should be working and paying for them or get the kids to live with the parent who does work and free up their time so they can work as well!!!

I didn't jump to any conclusion, clearly you can't read, off you go now and get educated!!! I was responding to the posts about NRP's having to pay, well so should PWC's!!! I didn't pass comment on the OP's case as I don't know their circumstances!

labyrinth84

Though I do believe CSA payments are for the child, if the parent with care is working then the money is hers as she has worked to pay for the bills and the childs needs out of her wage and won't be having rent/council tax paid.

However, there is alot of debate about how much children actually cost... bearing in mind, as adults we have to pay rent/council tax/ household bills with or without children. I know my child costs me no more than £32 a week, I know this because after rent/ council tax/ bills and CSA payments to my partners ex £32 is all we're left with...

Maybe when CSA calculates the amount they think a NRP should pay they should look at what they are leaving the NRP's family to live on.... Means testing would make everything a little fairer!

I also agree that unemployed people should not have cars. Cars are a luxury, that alot of employed people can not afford

DUTR

labyrinth84 wrote: »

Though I do believe CSA payments are for the child, if the parent with care is working then the money is hers as she has worked to pay for the bills and the childs needs out of her wage and won't be having rent/council tax paid.

However, there is alot of debate about how much children actually cost... bearing in mind, as adults we have to pay rent/council tax/ household bills with or without children. I know my child costs me no more than £32 a week, I know this because after rent/ council tax/ bills and CSA payments to my partners ex £32 is all we're left with...

Maybe when CSA calculates the amount they think a NRP should pay they should look at what they are leaving the NRP's family to live on.... Means testing would make everything a little fairer!

I also agree that unemployed people should not have cars. Cars are a luxury, that alot of employed people can not afford

CSA1 was means tested, I understand that in Australia, they look at the income of both parents and then come up with a figure for CS, from what I understand it is fair and sensible (so it will never happen here)
As for unemployed not having cars? Whilst I agree some take liberties, suppose someone just lost their job, should they scrap their car and other luxuries?

labyrinth84

DUTR wrote: »

CSA1 was means tested, I understand that in Australia, they look at the income of both parents and then come up with a figure for CS, from what I understand it is fair and sensible (so it will never happen here)
As for unemployed not having cars? Whilst I agree some take liberties, suppose someone just lost their job, should they scrap their car and other luxuries?

When my partner and I filled in the CSA forms sent to us, they weren't means tested. They asked for his income, and any tax credit/benefits. My partner has been paying through CSA from May 2012. He is S/E and his earnings aren't regular so they asked for a statement from his accountant for the year before. No questions about compulsory living expenses.

The cars....those on longterm unemployment! If employed people can not afford cars, how do unemployed afford them?! Surely they aren't all stolen, and without insurance?

shoe*diva79

labyrinth84 wrote: »

Though I do believe CSA payments are for the child, if the parent with care is working then the money is hers as she has worked to pay for the bills and the childs needs out of her wage and won't be having rent/council tax paid.

However, there is alot of debate about how much children actually cost... bearing in mind, as adults we have to pay rent/council tax/ household bills with or without children. I know my child costs me no more than £32 a week, I know this because after rent/ council tax/ bills and CSA payments to my partners ex £32 is all we're left with...

Maybe when CSA calculates the amount they think a NRP should pay they should look at what they are leaving the NRP's family to live on.... Means testing would make everything a little fairer!

I also agree that unemployed people should not have cars. Cars are a luxury, that alot of employed people can not afford

Im unsure how much children cost. I know its more then rent and council tax though. If you have no children you can rent a smaller property then say having 2 children. So straight away your rental costs have increased. Children cost food, heat, water, clothing, the odd present when attending their school friends birthday party, their own birthday, christmas, after school clubs (brownies, football etc) and the list does go on...

Child Support is supposed to let the child continue living the same standard as they were when the parents were together.

And Im sorry, but why should the NRP new family be more important then the family he had first? All children are important and if the NRP gains step children then I would expect their NRP to be providing, and if the NRP goes on to have more children of their own then they should seriously consider the cost and if they can afford it. New children do not make the older children suddenly cost free and no longer a financial consideration!

DUTR

shoe*diva79 wrote: »

Im unsure how much children cost. I know its more then rent and council tax though. If you have no children you can rent a smaller property then say having 2 children. So straight away your rental costs have increased. Children cost food, heat, water, clothing, the odd present when attending their school friends birthday party, their own birthday, christmas, after school clubs (brownies, football etc) and the list does go on...

Child Support is supposed to let the child continue living the same standard as they were when the parents were together.

And Im sorry, but why should the NRP new family be more important then the family he had first? All children are important and if the NRP gains step children then I would expect their NRP to be providing, and if the NRP goes on to have more children of their own then they should seriously consider the cost and if they can afford it. New children do not make the older children suddenly cost free and no longer a financial consideration!

I feel you are letting emotion get in the way of logic.
What if when parents split, the sate takes control of the children, to stop all this bickering?
You also have the wrong idea about CS contributions , it is to enable at least a basic standard, eg shoes, clothes food etc, heating and bills do not come into it, whether I'm in the house on my own or with company energy and water costs the same.

DUTR

labyrinth84 wrote: »

When my partner and I filled in the CSA forms sent to us, they weren't means tested. They asked for his income, and any tax credit/benefits. My partner has been paying through CSA from May 2012. He is S/E and his earnings aren't regular so they asked for a statement from his accountant for the year before. No questions about compulsory living expenses.

The cars....those on longterm unemployment! If employed people can not afford cars, how do unemployed afford them?! Surely they aren't all stolen, and without insurance?

I did mention CSA 1, that's the scheme before 2003.