help or advise needed

quietmouse1984

Csa old rules calculations

Any advise would be appriciated. Thanks

DUTR

Someone with more knowledge will be able to give the full situation, as I understand though on CSA 1, you may actually be 'better off' by furnishing your details to the equation.

shoe*diva79

Give them your details or they will assume you can pay 50% of the housing costs. If your working part time it makes sense.

FBaby

No offense, but referring to your partner's children as 'other people's children' is a bit shoking. Thank God my partner who contributes towards my children's every day costs since their dad doesn't contribute a penny doesn't see it like that.

In any case, my understanding of csa1 is not that they will take your salary into consideration to increase the amount your partner has to pay, but to consider how much you are expected to contribute towards the household and so his contribution is not 100%.

Marisco

FBaby wrote: »

In any case, my understanding of csa1 is not that they will take your salary into consideration to increase the amount your partner has to pay, but to consider how much you are expected to contribute towards the household and so his contribution is not 100%.

Yes but her wages will be taken into consideration, although they say it won't, because with her deemed to pay 50% of the household costs, it means he has more disposable income to take CM from. I never understand why people say the NRPP's income is not considered!

I had this argument with the CSA years ago (90's) I said to the woman on the phone, that of course my wage would be taken into account as I would be classed as paying half of all bills, which would leave more of oh's wage to take from, whereas if he paid all household bills, there would be less disposable income to grab!! She got snotty with me but didn't contradict me though!!

swingaloo

Im sure you do feel negativity towards the mothers but that dosnt mean that your partner should not be paying to help support them.
If he does or does not see them it shouldn't matter in terms of paying for them.
has he gone through the courts to get access?

Marisco

quietmouse1984 wrote: »

So do old rules work by takings your gross/net giving you protected income pressumably the same rates as incomesupport (personal allowance, family premium and dep allowance) then say pwc entitled to 15% (20%) two children?

No, the % is for CSA2, and your wages are completely disregarded. CSA1 is horrendously complicated, I've never understood how they work things out!! Someone might be along who can explain it for you, but if you're anything like me, it will still be as clear as thick mud!!

We had awful trouble with them, (this was mid 90's) because of their mess ups, and of course the MSE board wasn't here to help. We were almost made homeless because of them, it was only when I got our MP involved that things got sorted. The only saving grace to all this is it does end eventually!!! I know that is not much comfort when you're going through it, but the relief you'll feel when you get the letter saying the case is closed is indescribable!!

Marisco

If you get your oh to write to them giving his permission for them to speak to you, you'll be able to deal with it. My oh had to do that as he worked away, often in places that didn't have good communications, so it was easier for me to sort things out from this end, plus I was better at it, he was too much of a "soft lad"

FBaby

Marisco wrote: »

Yes but her wages will be taken into consideration, although they say it won't, because with her deemed to pay 50% of the household costs, it means he has more disposable income to take CM from. I never understand why people say the NRPP's income is not considered!

Ok, you can see it that the nrpp is contributing if you look at it this way, but turn it around, why should it be assumed that it is the nrp responsibility to support 100% of the household when the nrpp is working?

Take a couple with one child with no children from previous relationships, both working. How many such families have one member of the relationship paying 100% of the mortgage/rent and all bills whilst the other gets to dispose of their full income on luxuries? I think none, unless the one paying all receives an income massively higher then the other in which case, their income would have little impact on an assessment any way.

OP, I understand more on the basis of the no contact and yes, I can understand how this would make it more difficult. It's always a pity, whatever the reasons or faults when an nrp has no contact with his children.

Marisco

FBaby wrote: »

Ok, you can see it that the nrpp is contributing if you look at it this way, but turn it around, why should it be assumed that it is the nrp responsibility to support 100% of the household when the nrpp is working?

Take a couple with one child with no children from previous relationships, both working. How many such families have one member of the relationship paying 100% of the mortgage/rent and all bills whilst the other gets to dispose of their full income on luxuries? I think none, unless the one paying all receives an income massively higher then the other in which case, their income would have little impact on an assessment any way.

OP, I understand more on the basis of the no contact and yes, I can understand how this would make it more difficult. It's always a pity, whatever the reasons or faults when an nrp has no contact with his children.

But CSA 1 is still unfair when you compare it to CSA 2! With 2 only the NRP's income is taken into account, (leaving aside WTC etc) whether the NRPP is paying half the bills or not. The NRPP could be earning £1000 a week and it wouldn't matter, which is how it should be! I don't know why all 1 cases were not moved over when 2 came in. It's a ridiculous situation where there are two systems running parallel! Especially as CSA 1 one is so unfair.

owdslackdraws

Because you are working they will expect you to pay some towards the housing costs that they will allow your other half in his protected income figure, this will then lower his protected income and free up more of his wage to give to his ex's.

What you need to be careful of here is that you say your living with your mother, so just imagine your mother has said to you that you should pay her a minimal/token amount for rent so that you can save for your own home, the CSA will use this token amount as your housing costs then reduce it by your share. so in effect yor mother will be supporting your other half so he has more money for Ex's.

I have a copy of the sum they will use to to work out what share of housing costs they will want you to pay, I will dig it out and PM you later.