Can you be moved from CSA2 back to CSA1?

HoneyNutLoop

Just so I get this straight in my head, cus I'm having a bit of a muddled day (sleep deprivation - bad night!!) you're talking about you being in a relationship with mother number 2 but you don't live together? Have I got that right? In that scenario you are separated in the sense of not living together, but not separated in the sense you consider yourself a couple?

It's a question that comes up periodically on the main benefits board - "would I be considered single for benefits/tax credits purposes or part of a couple?" and from everything I've read it's a grey area, not black and white. The DWP FAQ has a whole section under "living as husband and wife", temporary absences, that sort of thing, and this is their guide for investigators:
http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/fraud-guide-living-together-investigations.pdf

From what I've read re: CSA, it's a similar thought process, but it's about households not about relationships. http://www.osscsc.gov.uk/judgmentfiles/j2094/CCS%202332%202006-00.doc

I can't seem to find another commissioner's decision I recall reading on the subject. I can keep looking if it would be of any interest? But basically, in some situations you could have two separate households being maintained at one address or you could have one household being maintained over several addresses (most commonly families of forces personnel, where the serviceman or woman is absent from the primary address for long periods of time, but is still considered part of the household)

HoneyNutLoop

Also I wasn't trying to say to the op theirs or any particular someone's was a fraudulent claim. I was trying to give an example of when a case might revert back from cs2 to cs1.

DUTR

HoneyNutLoop wrote: »

Also I wasn't trying to say to the op theirs or any particular someone's was a fraudulent claim. I was trying to give an example of when a case might revert back from cs2 to cs1.

Yes I understand what you are/were trying to say although I think it's fair to say it would be an exception rather than the rule, and in fairness the % wouldn't be too different for the NRP only that the PWC would be reduced by possibly 1/3rd and recuces 'bragging' rights

HoneyNutLoop

Yes I would agree it would be the exception, or at least I hope it would!!

kevin137

What would happen with the CSA1 case though, as they when moved are normally stair cased..???

Meaning while it would be assessed at 20%, 10% for each child, the 1st child would in fact get significantly more due to this...??? If the payments are significantly higher than they currently are of course...

Meaning the NRP would be paying FAR MORE than now anyway...

HoneyNutLoop

That's what I meant when I said about phasing in post 7.
So if on the cs1 case they were due to pay £70 for one child but on cs2 they are due to pay £100 for 2, on the face of it the payments for child 1 have gone down from £70 to £50 but then they will phase that reduction.

PreludeForTimeFeelers

Don't forget that phasing works both ways, too, so it may be that an increase is phased in, rather than a decrease.