CSA Using Child Tax Credits in Calculation???... Interesting info...

HoneyNutLoop

Because the whole section is already prefaced with it, so it doesn't need to be repeated for each part.

And child support law was changed because the tax credits system was changed in April 2003 as I mentioned before. Once upon a time it was Family Credit, then it became Working Families Tax Credit, then it became simply Tax Credits, made up of a working element, a child element and a childcare element.

wayne0

and the NRP's childcare element is assessed as "working tax credit"...

HoneyNutLoop

Which is not the same as working families tax credit, which was a whole different system altogether.

Normally under an award the childcare element is listed as a subsection of the child element, so it could have been worse. It could have been treated in the same way as the child element in which case it would always be taken into account 100%.

wayne0

ok, im sorry,

you dont seem to have read that I STATED ITS OLD LAW!

- as for childcare.

HB / ETC understands that if you need to pay childcare costs to work then they are disregarded from income...

CSA doesnt go by this...

wayne0

...

and how about this then:

Activity

Steps

Time Limits for Evidence Gathering (New rules)

[URL="javascript:void(0);"][IMG]file:///D:/Users/Wayne/Desktop/csa%20online%20procedures/CMEC153/pr1/oc/map_overview1.jpg[/IMG][/URL]
[URL="javascript:void(0);"][IMG]file:///D:/Users/Wayne/Desktop/csa%20online%20procedures/CMEC153/pr1/oc/screenshot_icon.gif[/IMG][/URL]

<li class="kadov-p">Under new rules, clients have seven days to respond to requests for information. There is no requirement to send a reminder to the client if the information is not provided within this time. <li class="kadov-p">However, issue a verbal or written reminder and make sure that all avenues for obtaining information have been exhausted before imposing a Default Maintenance Decision. <li class="kadov-p">A Default Maintenance Decision can only be considered if the change reported will change the calculation <li class="kadov-p">When the appropriate time limit has elapsed, contact the client and ask why the requested information has not been provided. <li class="kadov-p">There are no time limits for evidence gathering within legislation. Additional time can be allowed if it is appropriate to the case concerned. <li class="kadov-p">When selecting the

Finish button and [URL="javascript:void(0);"]further verification[/URL] is required, the case will pause for seven days.
[*]Once seven days has been reached, contact the client for verification.

CSA do not give more than seven days.... dispite it being clear that there is no legislative time limit to provide information.

HoneyNutLoop

No, I can read. What I am desperately trying to communicate is that child support law changed because the tax credits system changed. The old law could not continue to apply because Working Families Tax Credit no longer exists. And the assessment system for WFTC is different than the assessment system for the current set of tax credits. Child support law will have to be updated again when Universal Credit comes in because the law as it currently stands simply won't mesh up with the new system.

Re: HB or any other benefit, right now there are plenty of differences between what is and isn't taken into account for each benefit, as there isn't one model for awarding/denying benefits. There are differences between capital allowances for example, and not so long ago there were differences between if child maintenance was counted as an income from one benefit to the next. So yes, the CSA treats things differently than HB - because that's the law government put into place for child maintenance calculations. As I understand from your previous posts though, the current indications are that will be changing under the future scheme right?

HoneyNutLoop

wayne0 wrote: »

...

and how about this then:



CSA do not give more than seven days.... dispite it being clear that there is no legislative time limit to provide information.

What has that got to do with tax credits? Or any of the other stuff you were mentioning? Looking conversely at that, there is nothing in legislation then that says they have to give you more than 7 days. My own personal view is that 7 days isn't long enough, but if there is nothing in law one way or the other, doesn't that leave them free to pick a timescale?

wayne0

its pointing out how the CSA make it impossible for a NRP. a PWC does not need to supply evience...

with the postal system, 7 days doesnt allow for this - they even send mail out by 2nd class. the timescale for delivery being 3-5 days... useful?

HoneyNutLoop

Which is why I agree that 7 days isn't long enough. But I'm also a great believer in the serenity prayer: learning to accept the things you can't change, having the courage to change the things you can, and hoping for the wisdom to know the difference.

PreludeForTimeFeelers

HoneyNutLoop wrote: »

Which is why I agree that 7 days isn't long enough. But I'm also a great believer in the serenity prayer: learning to accept the things you can't change, having the courage to change the things you can, and hoping for the wisdom to know the difference.

Thank you HoneyNutLoop, I am sitting here bashing my head against my keyboard repeatedly.

Re:7 days - if I received a letter that may have a date of 2 or 3 days earlier, giving me 7 days to respond, I would try to do so. If I was concerned that any postal response from me wouldn't reach the intended recipient in time I would firstly phone them to provide the information over the phone, and to explain that I was sending it in but to manage their expectations of when the information may arrive.

Is that not what everyone else would do..?