change of situation...

krashovrload

kevin137 wrote: »

Haha, it is ALREADY broken down...

++

I'm not surprised

++

PreludeForTimeFeelers

Or an NRP could claim to be paying £x in private agreement for 4 other children or something, thus reducing the amount paid to PWC 1 - doing the private arrangements through the CSA means that all the children can be treated equally.

krashovrload

PreludeForTimeFeelers wrote: »

Or an NRP could claim to be paying £x in private agreement for 4 other children or something, thus reducing the amount paid to PWC 1 - doing the private arrangements through the CSA means that all the children can be treated equally.

++

Alternatively - a PWC could claim that their NRP wasn't paying them anything even though documentation showed otherwise. Although not sure what that would achieve (if the CSA aren't considering private arrangements)...

++

kevin137

PreludeForTimeFeelers wrote: »

Or an NRP could claim to be paying £x in private agreement for 4 other children or something, thus reducing the amount paid to PWC 1 - doing the private arrangements through the CSA means that all the children can be treated equally.

It is very easily verified with a PWC though...???

I understand there are ramifications whereby a PWC states she is no longer with a partner to reduce outgoings for a different child, but that also has ramifications for CTC WTC etc, so that doesn't fly as a reason in my mind...

What it needs is that you need to have a punishment where a person abusing the system is charged with a criminal offence, it takes away the temptation for probably 99.99% of people who would consider it...!

Just out of interest, does anyone know how this works with "Maintenance Direct" where the CSA work out the figure but it is paid directly and not as a private arrangement...???

krashovrload

kevin137 wrote: »

What it needs is that you need to have a punishment where a person abusing the system is charged with a criminal offence, it takes away the temptation for probably 99.99% of people who would consider it...!

++

Hmmm - not sure that would be a vote winner :eek:

++

Marisco

krashovrload wrote: »

++

Hmmm - not sure that would be a vote winner :eek:

++

Depends who's doing the voting!!

kevin137

krashovrload wrote: »

++

Hmmm - not sure that would be a vote winner :eek:

++

It is not a CHOICE you get to make though, if one PWC wants to use the CSA, then you HAVE to use the CSA for the other, is my understanding of it... If not then you are paid more...???

So someone please explain how this is freedom to choose...??? Cos i don't get it...!

As for the people who would not like it, they are the ones who are probably playing the system and are not doing what they should, there is NO reason otherwise...

And to be fair this shouldn't affect that many people, just the ones that don't want to pay the right amount, and if they would fiddle this for there own kids, what else would they fiddle...??? Surely they are already criminals in that case and should be punished... Haha

PreludeForTimeFeelers

kevin137 wrote: »

It is very easily verified with a PWC though...???

I understand there are ramifications whereby a PWC states she is no longer with a partner to reduce outgoings for a different child, but that also has ramifications for CTC WTC etc, so that doesn't fly as a reason in my mind...

What it needs is that you need to have a punishment where a person abusing the system is charged with a criminal offence, it takes away the temptation for probably 99.99% of people who would consider it...!

Just out of interest, does anyone know how this works with "Maintenance Direct" where the CSA work out the figure but it is paid directly and not as a private arrangement...???

But if the private case wasn't considered on the system how would the CSA verify what the NRP was paying another PWC who wasn't on their system? How would they even know they were talking to the right person, or that these other children were the NRP's?

With maintenance direct cases, if the NRP had 2 cases, one where they paid through the CSA and another set to MD, the CSA work out the assessment (for the sake of argument lets say it's £45 per week split 50-50). £22.50 would be paid through the CSA, and the other £22.50 would essentially just be a 'recommended amount' that the NRP would have to pay directly to the other PWC.

kevin137

So it does actually work with maintenance direct...? That was what i was trying to work out that was all...!

As when i was in that situation the CSA would have none of it, it was not an option with MD as it didn't exist, so it was just discounted, so although i came to a private agreement with one ex, and paid for the other through the CSA, the one i paid direct was never considered, even though there was court paperwork for it, it was a nightmare...!!!