Should NRP Outgoings be Taken into Account?

HoneyNutLoop

It can be done, but you have to meet certain criteria.
Some basic info about variations is in this leaflet pages 28-33:
http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/groups/dg_digitalassets/@dg/@en/@benefits/documents/digitalasset/dg_198849.pdf

They appear to have taken down the more detailed FAQ that I've posted links to before, as the URL now re-routes back to the normal gov.uk site.

So, instead, here is a link to the actual legislation:
http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/o-9321.pdf

Prior debts are covered by regulation 12.

To summarise, your weekly costs for repaying the debt must exceed £10 or £15 depending on your net weekly income. The CSA will only take account of your costs in excess of those amounts, and those costs will reduce your weekly income pound for pound, not your weekly maintenance.

So, for example, say you were paying £200 a month for a debt that meets the criteria, this would equate to £45.15 a week. Lets say your net weekly income is £300, so your costs need to exceed £10 a week. The first £10 isn't counted toward your reduction, so the CSA will take account of £35.15 a week, deducted from your weekly income of £300.

If you're paying maintenance for one child, your payments will reduce from 15% of £300 (£45) to 15% of £264.85 rounded to the nearest pound (£40).

Effectively you will see a 15p a week reduction in your maintenance for every pound you spend towards repaying the debt over and above the weekly thresholds. (Or 20p in the £1 if you're paying for 2 children or 25p in the £1 if paying for 3+ children).

There are some broad exclusions that won't be taken into account at all, such as credit card debts, most overdrafts, secured loans unless they were for specific home improvements, a mortgage or related insurance policy on the child or children's current home, or debts that you legally took on as part of a financial settlement with your ex or as ordered by a court.

To apply for a variation either ask the CSA to send you a form or call them to discuss.

DACC

If someone had the inkling and more importantly the resources, they could take the government to court for the abject unfairness of running 2 conflicting systems with 2 sets of rules. They would get hung, drawn and quartered.

cakeforbrains

DACC wrote: »

If someone had the inkling and more importantly the resources, they could take the government to court for the abject unfairness of running 2 conflicting systems with 2 sets of rules. They would get hung, drawn and quartered.

Do you think so? You've got to be able to make changes/improvements to a system and have a mechanism to implement those changes that isn't simply 'migrate everyone overnight', haven't you?

DACC

cakeforbrains wrote: »

Do you think so? You've got to be able to make changes/improvements to a system and have a mechanism to implement those changes that isn't simply 'migrate everyone overnight', haven't you?

They spent billions on a new computer system for the CSA. The system couldn't compute everyone who was already on the system - thus CSA1 and CSA 2 was born.

It was just a massive !!!! up and people on CSA1 had to bear the brunt of that whilst people on CSA2 paid a lot, lot less.

Having two systems running side by side, with vastly different calculations is just downright callous, specially when you have no comeback.

How anyone can't think this isn't wrong and unfair is beyond me.

13Kent

I sympathise and empathise with many of the above posters.

My husband's ex was the one who ended their marriage after she had a series of affairs. He tried and tried to keep his family together but to no avail, and he was practically bankrupted by both her as unbeknown to him she neglected to pay any household bills that came to the house - she showed him the bills and he gave her money to pay them, but he was guilty of being naive for unfortunately they were solely in his name, he thought they'd been paid, but they came back to haunt him months and sometimes years later leaving him with a bad credit rating through no fault of his own.

The CSA then tried their best to finish the job and leave him totally destitute. If we hadn't got together and I hadn't been prepared to support him financially during the early years I really don't know where he would have ended up - he'd lost his family, his home and was virtually bankrupt, and the CSA still wanted more than he had and ignored all the bills and debts that he'd been unaware he'd been left with until it was too late and the debt collecting agencies had been informed. Our PWC denied payments that my husband had made directly to her and CSA believed her and he got a bill for £14,000 for arrears for money he had already paid, and this was added to his liability.

There are currently 3 CSA systems in place. We are on CSA 1, and have been paying what the CSA asks for 10 years. (£600 a month for 2 children - and no my husband does not earn a substantial salary, and we are no longer paying back arrears). We have known for most of those 10 years that if we were on CSA 2 according to the CSA's own calculator our liability would be less than half that. We have tried without success to be migrated onto CSA 2 due to the unfairness of it all, even getting our MP involved but to no avail. My husband has always wanted to pay and always has paid for the upkeep of his children, but he would have liked to have paid a fair amount. In the early years, he was paying CSA, and his ex would ring and ask for money for school uniform, or school trips, etc and he would give her more over and above his CSA payments as she told him the children would lose out if he didn't and he didn't want them to go without. Now he realises this was unfair emotional blackmail - even to the point of getting the kids to ask for things on the phone so that he wouldn't refuse. - Hindsight is a wonderful thing!!

My husband and his ex had a joint loan which the CSA did not take into account when considering his outgoings - because it wasn't for something she still had in the house such as a sofa he had to continue to pay the loan in full up until it's cessation despite it being in joint names- or risk a bad credit rating. The CSA didn't consider it as part of his outgoings, so the money they left him to live on had to pay this and the other debts he'd been left with.

He had high contact costs - a 4 hr round trip every other Fri and Sun - he applied for a departure we won our case but "Because it didn't change the assesment by x amount per week" then there was no reduction. Again he had to pay these costs and have a reliable car or he would have had no contact with his kids, leaving him with less available money per month to spend on normal household expenses.

The PWC is considered to be on nil income as she receives WTC which is considered to be a benefit. Therefore as far as the CSA is concerned she is on benefits and therefore has no income. (Both her and her husband work in good jobs). Despite holidays to Disney Florida, complete house renovations, (kitchen, bathroom, carpets, furniture, garden landscaping) the CSA still considered their household to be on 'nil income'.

As soon as my husband and I got married despite being assured that my wages would not be considered his CSA liability increased. (We had no children at that point).

We have recently had the situation where the PWC encouraged the eldest child to stay on and do A levels despite the child not being academic and only just scraping through the required 5 GCSE's, none at a high grade. The reason for this was if the child got a job the child benefit and therefore CSA would cease. The child lasted a term before struggling and eventually getting thrown off the course. They then applied for an extention to the child benefit which was granted as the child signed up with connexions, and was eventually accepted onto an apprenticeship scheme. Again the PWC did not want the child to get a 'proper' job as the CSA liability would end. The child was now being paid in their own right, but csa was still payable as it was an apprenticeship scheme.

Then the child moved out to live with a girlfriend, so was no longer living in the PWC's home. The PWC continued to claim child benefit and therefore CSA continued to be paid. It was impossible to prove that the child had moved out of the PWC's home - the fact was denied by all, so for 12 more months payments continued.

The apprenticeship ended , nothing changed - payments continued to be made as we couldn't find out whether the child was now working and not continuing an apprenticeship. Then the child turned 18. Nothing changed. Eventually after asking for a benefits check we discovered that child benefit had not been paid for a number of months and the onus was on us to inform the CSA of this fact. Now more than 6 months later the CSA have finally agreed that we have been overpaying since the child turned 18 and wonder of wonders they have agreed to pay us back the overpayments.

Thankfully there is light at the end of the tunnel for the payments are now reducing.

We have lived with the constant battle with the CSA for more than 10 years now, and what we feel to be unfair payments as on CSA 2 the payments would have been half what has been paid for the last 10 years. But we have become more accepting of it in recent years, and tried hard not to let the CSA blight our lives and our relationshp with his children.

Finally there is light at the end of the tunnel as the payments are reducing, there is only liability for one child now, - ps the payments have not halved as you might expect (or maybe not if you know the CSA as well as we do!!) but reduced by only about £100) -but they are at last going in the right direction.

DACC

Your partner is a very lucky man, 13 Kent. I enjoyed reading your very eloquent post.

What was hard for me when paying arrears for my son - it was £500 a month on £17,000 salary - was that I just thought no one would ever be interested in me again, why would they? no money, debts, rubbish flat, no car, part time job working Saturday and Sunday just to make ends meet..... during the darkest days I actually had to steal food on a couple of occasions.

Then I met my missus.

It was hard to swallow and still is when people on CSA 2 were/are paying a lot less than me, let me tell you.

13Kent

Thank you for your kind words. I feel your pain!! You couldn't go into a shop and be told that you have to pay £2 for a pint of milk but the person next to you only has to pay £1 because they came in later than you - that's what the CSA does But life does go on - and gets better - glad things have improved for you too !!

PreludeForTimeFeelers

Isn't it similar to terms and conditions at a job?
People who started working at my place 10 years ago have got a cushier set of terms and conditions than people who started when I did 4 years ago. They pay smaller pension contributions, have a shorter working week, and have a few other perks. Likewise, there have been changes to terms and conditions since I started, so any new entrants get a day and a half less leave than others.

PreludeForTimeFeelers

There are an awful lot of NRPs on cs1 assessed as having nothing to pay who would actually have to contribute more on Cs2. Funnily enough you never seem to hear much from them complaining about being stuck on CS1.

13Kent

Yes, and a few tweaks is to be expected I suppose, but I don't suppose some people get double the pay of others for the same job though do they? According to the CSA's own calculations we are paying double the amount that we would be paying had we been on CSA 2. As I said before my husband is more than happy to pay for his children, they are his responsibility and he wouldn't want someone else to take that responsibility away from him, but it would be nice to pay a fair amount and he doesn't feel the amount set is fair based on the CSA's own calculations on their later systems.