how can i get most out of csa

mystery07

kelloggs36 wrote: »

Sorry, but I don't know where you get this idea from. If the CSA have assessed the NRP as being liable to pay 30 pounds per week, then it doesn't matter whether the NRP feels that he can't afford it -he has no choice. They certainly will NOT say that it is okay not to pay the rest!!!! Whilst a PWC is in receipt of Income support there is nothing they can do but to live with the fact that the NRP has to pay whatever the assessment is, and that they will only get the max of a tenner per week on top of their income support. If she comes off IS and claims WFTC for working 16 hrs per week or more, then she would keep all the CSA money or can get it closed and they can come to their own arrangement as they see fit. Until then, there is nothing open to them.

I could list to you 10+ cases, where the CSA, have changed the assesment, because the NRP has pleaded poverty, that's just ones I know about personally. For example, my ex (my sons dad), when we were together, was contacted by the CSA to pay for his daughter from his 1st marriage. When they finally assessed him, I think he was asked to pay £280 pm, but our son had just been born & in all honesty, this would have left us pretty strapped. He called them, wrote a couple of letters & ended up paying £120.

Something similar with my last partner, whom Ive jst broken up with too.

Also, my auntie, seperated from my uncle & left him with three children (he now has two children) & she pays £5 a month for them, because she pleaded poverty. I think she earns 30K + & has no mortgage!

So I know of plenty of cases, which would make me assume, that this is pretty commonplace. Perhaps, CSA are harder with some cases than others?? But that has been my general impression of their system.

xxx

TheWaltons_3

mystery07 wrote: »

I could list to you 10+ cases, where the CSA, have changed the assesment, because the NRP has pleaded poverty, that's just ones I know about personally. For example, my ex (my sons dad), when we were together, was contacted by the CSA to pay for his daughter from his 1st marriage. When they finally assessed him, I think he was asked to pay £280 pm, but our son had just been born & in all honesty, this would have left us pretty strapped. He called them, wrote a couple of letters & ended up paying £120.

Something similar with my last partner, whom Ive jst broken up with too.

Also, my auntie, seperated from my uncle & left him with three children (he now has two children) & she pays £5 a month for them, because she pleaded poverty. I think she earns 30K + & has no mortgage!

So I know of plenty of cases, which would make me assume, that this is pretty commonplace. Perhaps, CSA are harder with some cases than others?? But that has been my general impression of their system.

xxx

Does this go for CSA2 also?

mystery07

TheWaltons wrote: »

You are choosing to do this - the educational system provides schooling for children, particularly in their final years for GCSE's. For what reason do you have to use home tutoring?

With the Tax Credit system, parents are much better off.

I don't see why my remarks are offensive - I am poor with three very small children and both my partner work full time. I work 32 hours a week, he works 42. It would be in both of our health interests if we claimed IS, stayed in the house all day and 'chilled out' - the interest on the mortgage would be paid and we'd get money from the DSS. We just choose not to. We enjoy working.

I find remarks about being 'poor' when on IS offensive.

Parents are NOT neccessarily MUCH better off with tax credits. If you go out to work for minimum wage, for 16 hours a week. In essense you would need to claim housing/council tax benefit as well & in the calculations that they use, they actually only "allow" you £25 pw more than you would recieve on IS, the rest of your tax credits would be used towards rent/CTax. And it could actually cost you more than £15 pw to go out to work thus you could actually become WORSE off than on IS.

I believe that parents, (especially, single mothers) should have a fair choice of whether they want to go out to work or not & not be pushed into it, at least while the children are young. The government seems to have plenty of benefits to dish out to asylum seekers, so why not British single mothers?!

mystery07

TheWaltons wrote: »

Does this go for CSA2 also?

Im assuming you mean the new body being/have already been set up to collect debts? I dont know that much about them tbh.

I have read though, that the goverment, is about to allow the CSA to officially write off debts, that they dont have much chance of recieving. Which, I personally think is a bad move!

wifeforlife

mystery07 wrote: »

I believe that parents, (especially, single mothers) should have a fair choice of whether they want to go out to work or not & not be pushed into it, at least while the children are young. The government seems to have plenty of benefits to dish out to asylum seekers, so why not British single mothers?!

I'm a single mother and have to disagree with your opinion, which of course you are perfectly entitled to.

My dd is 3.5yrs old, I work in the civil service, I worked full time until 15 months ago, now I work 21 hours a week, my choice so I can spend quality time with my child and not just at weekends when domestic duties prevail. I'm on the lowest wage for an AO in the civil service despite 5 years service. I get no help with my rent, I cant afford to buy a house, tax credits are ok but not great, CSA is fine and regular from x partner.

I struggle financially but its so fulfilling to know that any piece of clothing, any present, any meal I make my child has been earned by me and is a gift to her from me. Having pride in myself, my child and my job is so fulfilling.

On another side I suffered PND after the birth for a long time, going to work and having adult company, conversations that didnt revolve around me or my child had a major affect in me over coming my PND.

So I think that it's in the best interests of the parents (regardless of gender) and in the best interest of the child(ren) that the parents go to work.

To the o/p I think the advise you have received is already spot on, their going to take the majority of the money unless you have a personal agreement with your x partner that doesnt include the csa money, only other option is part time working but not knowing your personal circumstances I would not and cannot comment

Cate

Mr_Green_Genes

There appears to be a certain amount of confusion here.

Firstly, despite what may appear to have happened, there is simply no way in law that the CSA will calculate an assessment, send it out and then just change it because the NRP pleads poverty. It may be the case that they got it wrong in the first place and then changed it in the face of a complaint (in fact, I'd say there's a high probability of that happening) but otherwise, no.

Secondly, by CSA2 (CS2), most people mean the revised method of calculating maintenance, brought in following the passing of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000 which started in 2003. That changed the alchemy of the maintenance calculations in the 1991 Child Support Act into something that was at least understandable by most people, even if not CSA staff.

The new system, C-MEC, already dubbed C-MESS even by parliamentarians, makes some more changes but, if the government is to be believed (yes, I know that's a HUGE leap of faith but stick with this for a minute), will not allow for much writing off of debts. In fact, there is even a suggestion that the CSA will be after the estates of dead people. How tasteless (but how unsurprising) is that??

TheWaltons_3

Mr_Green_Genes wrote: »

The new system, C-MEC, already dubbed C-MESS even by parliamentarians, makes some more changes but, if the government is to be believed (yes, I know that's a HUGE leap of faith but stick with this for a minute), will not allow for much writing off of debts. In fact, there is even a suggestion that the CSA will be after the estates of dead people. How tasteless (but how unsurprising) is that??

Very tasteless, very shocking.. but then very expected. I bet the CSA are kicking themselves for not having thought of that sooner. Perhaps they will strike up a deal with the Co-op - would save money on Inland Revenue traces

mystery07

cathy2702 wrote: »

I'm a single mother and have to disagree with your opinion, which of course you are perfectly entitled to.

My dd is 3.5yrs old, I work in the civil service, I worked full time until 15 months ago, now I work 21 hours a week, my choice so I can spend quality time with my child and not just at weekends when domestic duties prevail. I'm on the lowest wage for an AO in the civil service despite 5 years service. I get no help with my rent, I cant afford to buy a house, tax credits are ok but not great, CSA is fine and regular from x partner.

I struggle financially but its so fulfilling to know that any piece of clothing, any present, any meal I make my child has been earned by me and is a gift to her from me. Having pride in myself, my child and my job is so fulfilling.

On another side I suffered PND after the birth for a long time, going to work and having adult company, conversations that didnt revolve around me or my child had a major affect in me over coming my PND.

So I think that it's in the best interests of the parents (regardless of gender) and in the best interest of the child(ren) that the parents go to work.

To the o/p I think the advise you have received is already spot on, their going to take the majority of the money unless you have a personal agreement with your x partner that doesnt include the csa money, only other option is part time working but not knowing your personal circumstances I would not and cannot comment

Cate

Sorry. What I was expressing was not an opinion. It is was fact. You can end up, being worse off financially, because of the system, by going back to work. My only opinion, is that Mothers, esp. single ones, should have a right to choose whether they want to go out to work, esp. whilst they have little ones. Children, need time from caregivers, esp parents, to help them grow up into functional adults. Women who work, are always going to find giving their children as much as they need difficult. It still hurts, when I drop my son off at his childminders every morning, even though I know he is getting the benefit of mixing with other children, he is not getting the benefit of me. Not even half as much as he should. Women, who dont want to work (because they have children) have the RIGHT not to! I cant be persuaded any other way. Children, as brought up best, by their parents. Period.

Good for you going out to work. I go out to work, almost full time (around 35 hours per week) & Im doing a degree & Im a single mother to a 3yr old. However, anyone in reciept of tax credits are still recieving benefits. In some form, you & I are still being subsidised by the govt. Just as those on IS, however, we are taking more out of the pot.

TheWaltons_3

mystery07 wrote: »

Good for you going out to work. I go out to work, almost full time (around 35 hours per week) & Im doing a degree & Im a single mother to a 3yr old. However, anyone in reciept of tax credits are still recieving benefits. In some form, you & I are still being subsidised by the govt. Just as those on IS, however, we are taking more out of the pot.

Taking more out of the pot? But we are putting INTO that pot by paying the taxes they dish out to those in receipt of benefits!!!

Why should we feel guilty for receiving Tax credits, if we've been paying taxes?

jungliemac

If a parent with care is on IS then they are in effect being provided with enough money to live (according to what government think a family need) so therefore the way to recoup some of this money is to repay any maintenence received from the non resident parent back to the state. Ultimatley this needs to be done or the cost to every taxpayer would be massive to first pay out IS then to get nothing back. I know it may seem a bit unfair to you as you would spend that money on your child but the cost of living has been calculated already and is set by IS rates..... Hope that makes sense!!