how can i get most out of csa

TheWaltons_3

mystery07 wrote: »

You said that you now work 21 hours a week, as a low paid civil servant. In which case, I would imagine you will recieve more in tax credits, than you pay in taxes. I certainly Do!!

I dont feel guilty about that, nor did I say that I think WE should. In 10 years, I will have finished my degree, I will be fully trained for my profession & I wont be in reciept of tax credits. But even in that position, I will happy that my tax is being used to help other single mums. Its some of the other uses that the govt spends our taxes on that i disagree with.

Not me - I am not a civil servant and I work 32 hours a week. My husband works 42 hours salaried and pays a large chunk of tax - he earns more than I do. We are still broke and find it disgraceful that people can whinge about being poor, when they are being given money to choose to do what they like in the day.

I am entitled to state what I think, and would rather my children see us working hard to provide for them and follow suit.

Zara33

TheWaltons that's a whole different thread there

Scarlett1

no wonder the OP hasnt been back, the discussion of benefits ins and outs belongs in Discussion Time

kelloggs36

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

You are confusing the ability to pay and a change of circumstances. I am a staff member of CSA so I do know the legislation and believe me, I have dealt with many cases where I would love to have been in a postion to lower an assessment, but my hands were tied because the circumstances would not allow it. The only things would result in a lower assessment would be a change in circumstances - your example is one of those. Before the child was born, he had to pay more, then he had to pay less. That has nothing to do with whether he can afford to pay. If the assessment had left him with no change in liability (which happens often) then the CSA could have done nothing to change it because he pleaded poverty. Unfortunately, affordability is irrelevant.

People do lie to the CSA it is common I'm afraid, which leads to lower assessments than they should be getting - such as the Self-employed. Not all of them clearly, but many can massge their figures to suit, so when they want a mortgage, they can inflate their income, and when it comes to CSA, all of a sudden their income is a paltry figure, leading to a low, or even nil assessment. These cases are an uphill struggle for PWCs who know that they of the examples you have given not one of them would have been a result of the NRP phoning the CSA and 'pleading poverty'. It could have been a Departure application - where they have had debts of the previous relationship where the criteria are met, thus lowering the assessment, or as I've already said, a change of circumstances, or an outright lie to the CSA of their true circumstances.

But they CAN negotiate the amount of arrears they take - they can't write them off but they won't let them go for ever, so you may find that the arrears will be recouped at a later date. The original assessment would have stood until the point that your partner told the CSA of his circumstances, so the new assessment would only apply from the time that he told them of it, not when it happened, so you may find that a couple of years down the line, he will get a letter demanding arrears. They used to be able to do what is called 'deferred debt', but this is no longer an option. This was where arrears had built up because of CSA delay (not the non-compliance of the NRP), and the NRP only had to pay back the last 6 months worth of arrears providing that he made payments of regular maintenance without a break - as an incentive. If he/she failed to make a payment, then all the arrears became due again.

bench0_1

mystery07 wrote: »

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.

So what about the fathers who create a home for their child have them for 175+ nights a year and still pay an amazing contrubution in CSA payments have no fuel allownaces taken into consideration and are still worse off than the pwc who has all the benefits under the sun? in addition i wouldnt mind (quite so much) if the money went to the pwc but all it is doing is paying her benefits for the government which surely if they offer they should pay!?

kelloggs36

That seems a bit odd, suggesting that the Government have this pot of money which belongs to them - the money belongs to the Tax payer, joe bloggs off the street. So the tax payer is subsidising the benefits, and the expenditure must be kept to a minimum in order to be able to afford other things which are for the benefit of the Country, such as the NHS and education - as much as we would like, there isn't an endless pot of money so the Government decided that if a child's parent is on benefits, then the child must be supported by their other parent as their other parent cannot support them themselves as they are claiming benefits. The next system will be different in that those on benefits will get to keep all the money, thus reversing this situation, but personally, I don't believe that those on benefits SHOULD be potentially better off than somebody who works, otherwise nobody would bother. I could then potentially walk out on my husband, take my 2 children with me, claim benefits, stay at home and then on top of that, get 20% of his income which if he is a high earner, would give me no incentive whatsoever to get a job and cease to be a burden on the State. Perhaps there should be a middle ground somewhere, where they get to keep a bit more than a tenner, maybe up to 50%, but not all of it, otherwise it makes a mockery and it will encourage unscrupulous parents with care to play the system.

aussiesbird

kelloggs36 wrote: »

That seems a bit odd, suggesting that the Government have this pot of money which belongs to them - the money belongs to the Tax payer, joe bloggs off the street. So the tax payer is subsidising the benefits, and the expenditure must be kept to a minimum in order to be able to afford other things which are for the benefit of the Country, such as the NHS and education - as much as we would like, there isn't an endless pot of money so the Government decided that if a child's parent is on benefits, then the child must be supported by their other parent as their other parent cannot support them themselves as they are claiming benefits. The next system will be different in that those on benefits will get to keep all the money, thus reversing this situation, but personally, I don't believe that those on benefits SHOULD be potentially better off than somebody who works, otherwise nobody would bother. I could then potentially walk out on my husband, take my 2 children with me, claim benefits, stay at home and then on top of that, get 20% of his income which if he is a high earner, would give me no incentive whatsoever to get a job and cease to be a burden on the State. Perhaps there should be a middle ground somewhere, where they get to keep a bit more than a tenner, maybe up to 50%, but not all of it, otherwise it makes a mockery and it will encourage unscrupulous parents with care to play the system.

I quite agree with you there kelloggs36, but again it comes back to every situation being different, I think that have to find a system that doesn't generalise it so much - you have to look at the bigger picture. There are many unscrupulous people out there and unfortunately some see their children as weapons to be used against an ex partner. These are the people who should be investigated! If they didn't think they could get away with it then there wouldn't be as many people trying! When the CSA was launched there was a big hoohaa over mothers with care not getting what they deserve, I believe these mothers do exist but the CSA overcompensated to make their figures look good by peanalising the NRP's who are already paying. This system HAS to change as the more people complain the larger their workload becomes, so why not just take the time in the first place to assess each individual case and I'm sure there would be a lot more happier people out there. Stop wasting time and money on complaints and get it right in the first place!!

kelloggs36

It would be good in principle, but there are such a wide array of differences out there that it would be impossible to assess each case individually - people's judgements would also vary, so it would not be a fair system which is why certain criteria are put in place - to ensure that all cases are treated equally - either something is allowed, or it isn't. With a case by case system, it would create even more work as people start appealing that 'my friend was allowed this and I wasn't' and without legislation and guidance, the whole system would fall apart. The problem is that we are dealing with two ends of a spectrum - one party who will gain money from the other which is a contentious issue and not one which can ever please everybody, no matter how fair we wish to be. Also, there is the issue of impartiality. The CSA staff are not involved in the lives of their clients, and so cannot have the same insight into the relationship as those involved and they cannot possibly know which one of the two parties are being totally honest without direct evidence - in the absense of evidence decisions still have to be made which of course will benefit one person over the other.

The CSA are target driven - targets are set by Government and they don't listen to the CSA staff who shout and scream that they are arbitary and unfair, but the CSA staff get the flack. They are bullied by management into meeting targets and so have to prioritise cases where they will get a result - rather than what they should be doing is concentrating on those who are not complying. The private cases that exist are only those who are unable to come to a private agreement as there is no compulsion for them to apply to the CSA - they are free to do whatever they please, and are forced to apply if one party refuses to be fair - the formula is seen as the only fair way in the absence of any other alternative. The only people therefore who should possibly feel aggrieved are those where they would happily come to a private agreement but for the legislation which prevents it. But this comes back to the original problem of any PWCs being much better off if they are allowed to keep all the money - which could have a negative impact in the view of an NRP who could argue that the PWC will be better off than them as they have to hand over cash to them when they have already been given money to live on by the taxpayer - many NRPs are resentful when the PWC is better off than they are and they see it as a reason not to maintain their children. Others don't want to pay anything at all because they hate the PWC so much that they lose sight of the fact that their children may be suffering, or they don't want to pay because the Government are already paying and as the children won't get the benefit of their money directly, they resent it. So, there is no easy answer to this dilema - there can never be 100% agreement on this issue as it affects so many people in so many ways. For every NRP who feels that they are being screwed, there is a PWC who is getting nothing, or is not getting a fair amount due to the NRP playing the system and getting away with what others do not (self-employed for example).

aussiesbird

I understand what you are saying kelloggs36 and agree with most of your points but the system you are working at the moment isn't working so something has to change. Whatever way it changes I feel there will be more work involved for the staff at the CSA but this has to be the case; there has to be a more in-depth assessment available for BOTH PWC and NRP. There must be a fairer system. Or scrap the CSA altogether and let individuals take their cases to an arbitrator and provide some kind of funding for this.

kelloggs36

And the arbitrator would do the job of the CSA - so going full circle. It just cannot be perfect, it is impossible. Have you read the paper on the proposed changes to the CSA? You are able to comment to help your views get heard; at least you will know that you have tried to put your point across to the powers that be.