change of situation...

Cka

My ex I currently paying csa for my son.. he is living with his partner who has 2 children one of which is his.. this relationship looks to be on rocky ground what difference if any would this have on my csa case with my son.. she will go for csa for their child..

kevin137

If you currently get 15% of 80% of his wages, then you would get 10% of 100% of his wages should they split...

Cka

So techincally it wouldn't make much of a difference?
I did think it was a bit like child benefit and the first child got more..

Marisco

Cka wrote: »

I did think it was a bit like child benefit and the first child got more..

Why on earth would you think that? All an NRP's kids are equal surely?

krashovrload

Marisco wrote: »

All an NRP's kids are equal surely?

++

You'd like to think so but the system has been known to arrive at some strange decisions...

++

kevin137

Cka wrote: »

So techincally it wouldn't make much of a difference?
I did think it was a bit like child benefit and the first child got more..

I actually understand the reasoning for thinking like that.

And it is not as stupid as it sounds, as it is worded as 15% for 1 child 20% for 2, 25% for 3... But it doesn't state the differences when more than one...

So 2 mothers with one child each both with CSA case, would mean 10% each, not 15% and 5%.

Much like if you have 1 with a private case and one with a CSA case, it changes again, as the private does NOT affect the CSA case, so you would pay ?? by private and 15% by CSA...

Confusing, and stupid at times...!!!

krashovrload

kevin137 wrote: »

Much like if you have 1 with a private case and one with a CSA case, it changes again, as the private does NOT affect the CSA case, so you would pay ?? by private and 15% by CSA...

++

That's interesting and somewhat typical of the CSA...

They are encouraging people to make private arrangements instead using the CSA service but then they don't recognise any maintenance paid.?

I suppose they would argue that there would be too many variables and waiting for pieces of evidence if they did that.??

++

Sensemaya

krashovrload wrote: »

++

That's interesting and somewhat typical of the CSA...

They are encouraging people to make private arrangements instead using the CSA service but then they don't recognise any maintenance paid.?

I suppose they would argue that there would be too many variables and waiting for pieces of evidence if they did that.??

++

I think if you want to make a private arrangement it's best to keep the CSA out of it full stop.

How can they argue too many variables etc? It should be from day one end of. But nothing is ever simple with the CSA.

kevin137

So for an NRP that has 1 private and 1 CSA, it is probable that BOTH would have to be CSA even if charging is introduced, and that is NOT FAIR...!!!

But who ever said the CSA where fair eh...!!!

krashovrload

How can they argue too many variables etc? It should be from day one end of. But nothing is ever simple with the CSA

++

Sorry - I just meant that the CSA computer system probably wouldn't be able to cope with lots of people having lots of private arrangements combined with fixed CSA %rates without breaking down...

++

kevin137

Haha, it is ALREADY broken down...