Should NRP Outgoings be Taken into Account?

CSAworkerx

@cakeforbrains, your putting personal feelings into ure comments, i dont do that, every single case is diffrent with diffrent circs, i never said an nrp shouldnt pay for his/her kids, that we both agree on, but when you have a genuine father who wants to pay for there kids but earns next to nothing, and a pwc who has a massive income, it can get messy. its a pointless topic as it will never change.

cakeforbrains

CSAworkerx wrote: »

@cakeforbrains, your putting personal feelings into ure comments, i dont do that, every single case is diffrent with diffrent circs, i never said an nrp shouldnt pay for his/her kids, that we both agree on, but when you have a genuine father who wants to pay for there kids but earns next to nothing, and a pwc who has a massive income, it can get messy. its a pointless topic as it will never change.

It's not possible to make comments without personal feelings. We all bring our own experiences and opinions into decisions. Your comment implied that, through your work at the CSA, you have decided that PWCs income should be taken into account as part of the whole process.

Of course every case is different, but that's kind of a moot point when we have to come up with some kind of blanket system that will essentially be fair. The alternative is to go back to pre-CSA days when decisions were made at the whim of a judge who, in turn, will have their own experiences and opinions and therefore make subjective decisions.

In a genuinely polite way, I'd love to hear any example you can bring to the debate of a "messy" situation where the PWC earns more than the NRP (not a real one, of course). I can't think of any such situation where I'd not just think that the NRP was resentful and jealous, but maybe you can bring an example that would change my mind on that?

CSAworkerx

Belive me when i say i dont put personal feelings into it, That would be like taking work home with me and i honestly dont care enough about the 100's of people i speak to weekly, i cant get that involed.

You call the point moot, but the system isnt fair and its likely to never be fair, its hard for me to give exmaples without talking about real cases, meaning real peoples lives.

But if i must, i remeber a case with an NRP who worked in a 40 hour / minimum wage job, he left the pwc 3 months into her pregnancy due to her behavior but from day 1 wanted to pay for his child, he met a new partner and proceeded to have 2 more children with her, he couldnt get acsess to the first child and was getting into massive debt fighting for visitation, All the while were chargeing him, after speaking a number of times to both of them, it was clear the lifestyles they both lived, it was difficult to get ahold of the pwc, as she was often abroad, the nrps partner had a terminal illness, which meant the nrp had to also pay for her care, she could no longer work which meant the household income dropped drastically as she was the main earner, and child care of his 2 other children while he worked, This was on top of court fees.

the pwc also re-married, and ( this is based on her evidence ) her new partner was a barrister earning a fortune, she herself had a job which paid more than the nrps did.

This nrp broke down on the phone to me once, he was apologetic for doing so, his wife was ill, he was working every hour sent to support his family, he rarely saw his own 2 children, and never saw his other child.

Now, you have a case and you have a right to be biased for whatever reason, but this man needed help, this story isnt invented, with the checks we can make we could see the nrp had around 4-6 outstanding payday loans, 2 bank loans and countless credit cards, The child lived a comftable life with the pwc/nrp, the income was 10x what the nrp had, how you tell me, is it fair for us to take the same % from him as it is to others, its not, but thats noones fault.

cakeforbrains

The story you recall here is obviously a really unfortunate one, and maybe it makes me a heartless person, but I still think that even in this case the NRP should pay his 15% (less deductions) for the child.

It's really crappy luck that he had to fight a court battle for contact, and dreadful that his new partner was ill, but I don't think that these things should mean that the State excuses him of his financial obligation to his first child. the circumstances of their break up (which I am surprised you know, and are never as they are told) should have absolutely nothing to do with subsequent financial judgements.

The fact that the PWC and the PWC's partner each earn more than the NRP shouldn't mean that the NRP gets to pay less than everyone else towards his child either. Although I can appreciate that it would illicit jealousy (hell, I'd be jealous of somebody with an income like that) the NRP in your example should find some room in his head to appreciate that the PWC's new partner was willing to take on some of the financial responsibility of the child and potentially improve his or her quality of life.

The fact that the NRP has run up debts or that care costs have to be paid shouldn't mean that the NRP gets to opt out of paying towards his first child. Nor should the fact that he remarried and chose to have two more children.

I can appreciate that some situations rightly garner more sympathy than others, and that when you hold up your example to, say, somebody who dodges child support by fiddling self employed income, things cannot be said to be 'fair', but I still cannot think of one possible situation where I would say it was morally ok for society to effectively give a working parent permission to stop financially contributing to their child.

Maybe I am alone in thinking this way.

Incidentally - you can check credit files?

Marisco

cakeforbrains wrote: »

The alternative is to go back to pre-CSA days when decisions were made at the whim of a judge who, in turn, will have their own experiences and opinions and therefore make subjective decisions.

Or can weigh up the situation from both sides, "face to face" with evidence of income and expenditure. They can have more leeway to cut the NRP a bit of slack, rather than hound them to the point of destitution! And I'm talking about compliant NRP's here, not the useless sods!!

CSAworkerx

@cake, noone is talking about opting out of payments, more like allowing nrps to pay less for a period of time then more when they can, thats just one exmaple, you seem to think its all or nothing, which it is, but it shouldnt be.

as for what we can check, it would make ure eyes water on how much information we have on people. bank accounts, credit cards, address's, relationship status, any benefit, tax creds, loans, previous names, employer, payroll number, staff number... to list but a few.

cakeforbrains

Marisco wrote: »

Or can weigh up the situation from both sides, "face to face" with evidence of income and expenditure. They can have more leeway to cut the NRP a bit of slack, rather than hound them to the point of destitution! And I'm talking about compliant NRP's here, not the useless sods!!

So, ok, how would this method look? What do you mean by 'cut some slack'? Reduce the percentage the NRP has to pay?

Although it probably doesn't come across in text, I'm not trying to be confrontational here, but rather hear more about the way you think it should work.

cakeforbrains

CSAworkerx wrote: »

@cake, noone is talking about opting out of payments, more like allowing nrps to pay less for a period of time then more when they can, thats just one exmaple, you seem to think its all or nothing, which it is, but it shouldnt be.

as for what we can check, it would make ure eyes water on how much information we have on people. bank accounts, credit cards, address's, relationship status, any benefit, tax creds, loans, previous names, employer, payroll number, staff number... to list but a few.

No, I'm not surprised about anything but the loans and credit cards, and the only mildly surprised. It seems obvious you'd have all those other details, I just don't know why you'd need credit commitment information.

Ok, so if the system allowed for a reduction of payments how would that be assessed and decided? Surely there are very few outgoings that should be given priority over paying for one's children. You pay for your child first and then cut the rest of your cloth accordingly. Maybe I am being too idealistic.

clearingout

CSAworkerx wrote: »

in certain cases yes, if i see an nrp working 50 hours a week and picking up say 1200 a month, and a pwc who is working 20 hours a week and picking up 4000 a month, this should be taken into account, It isnt but should be, the same goes for pwc's new partners, the problem being data protection and it would create a massive crapstorm.

in such a situation where a couple were married, spousal maintenance is likely to have been ordered which would even up the disparity in income.

Both parents have a financial responsibility towards their children, regardless of either of their respective incomes or capital. I personally like the straight percentage calculation as we all know where we stand with it, there is little margin for error (self employment being the usual exception) and at if taken at face value, all children have the same 'value' placed upon them regardless of what their NRP earns.

Other options involve way too much margin for error, rule books the size of houses, serious training required for all staff and an incredibly robust appeals system because it will always go to appeal. You can't base a system on what ifs and maybes.

clearingout

Marisco wrote: »

Or can weigh up the situation from both sides, "face to face" with evidence of income and expenditure. They can have more leeway to cut the NRP a bit of slack, rather than hound them to the point of destitution! And I'm talking about compliant NRP's here, not the useless sods!!

what would count as 'evidence'? we are all fully aware that it's possibly to hide your true income when you're self employed. And who is to say what reasonable expenses are? a teacher who travels 50 miles to a job, for example, would have high petrol costs. Would it be reasonable to suggest to them that they can get another job at the nearest school 0.25 miles away, or 5 miles, or 10? Should either side be permitted to live in a detached house when their needs (3 bedrooms, bathroom, kitchen) can be adequately met in a flat? should receipts for shopping at Waitrose be considered reasonable if everything on it can be bought in Aldi? Should a PWC who keeps a car but works on a bus route not be allowed to have the car? What size/make of car is acceptable?

There are too many variables to do things 'face to face'. Way too subjective to work out what is reasonable and what isn't. The straight percentage of salary is far easier to handle and far fairer to all concerned.