Should NRP Outgoings be Taken into Account?

pretzelnut

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.

If you can check all that, why is it that no one can ever check my case file and provide me with the correct info.

Why is it that I'm having to wait months whilst my NRP drags his feet with wage slips etc if you can just look his earnings up with HMRC.

CSAworkerx

pretzelnut wrote: »

If you can check all that, why is it that no one can ever check my case file and provide me with the correct info.

Why is it that I'm having to wait months whilst my NRP drags his feet with wage slips etc if you can just look his earnings up with HMRC.

we give nrps 2 weeks to give slips, 3 at a push, then we will contact employers who get a little longer, but are required by law to provide, problem arrises when the employer refuses to do so, then the process can take alot longer, to the point we have to take employers to court, about checking ure case, phone in and ask what you need to, if they dont have the info request a call back ( we have to achive these call backs or we get disciplined )

Marisco

cakeforbrains wrote: »

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.

If you take the case that CSA worker talks about, it's obvious that the guy is in financial trouble, does anyone really want to push him further? As CSAworker says, let him pay less for a while whilst he "gets on his feet" It doesn't benefit anyone to push people to, and sometimes over, the limit. That is how resentment and conflict happens. It just seems that they "pick" on compliant NRP's wanting more and more all the time, and leave the useless deadbeats (the won't pays) alone.

How many times have we seen on here about self employed NRP's getting away with murder, and other compliant NRP's at the end of their tether? The whole system, similar to the judicial system, works on conflict and confrontation.

For instance my oh when he split from his ex, was paying all her debts and the mortgage, everything worked fine. The CSA got involved (about 12 months down the line as she decided she didn't want to work any more and thought she'd get benefits and CSA, she had a bloody shock when she never! ) Anyway, upshot was, he had to stop paying the mortgage and her debts, and the CSA took so much off him we were almost homeless, and so was she, due to her not keeping up the mortgage payments.

This was down purely to her greed, thinking she'd get more by not working, claiming benefits and oh paying CSA. She would now, but at the time (mid 90's) it didn't work like that. Oh was seriously considering giving up his work (and the private pension that went with it) because we were in so much financial hardship. It was only the intervention of our MP (which a male member of the CSA told me about, the female staff's attitude quite frankly stank!) that averted a catastrophe. His payments were reduced and we managed to scrape by until I got a job.

Had we been able to explain to a judge face to face, the situation, (with evidence to back it up) then I think he would have seen that oh was not trying to evade paying, but that the situation had to have some realism about it, and what they were wanting him to pay was imposssible, without severe financial hardship to him, with the very real possibility of homelessness. The CSA would not listen to reason, they had a "script" and were sticking to it, there was no room for negotiation, whereas a judge would have a bit more wriggle room and use a bit of common sense!

13Kent

Both parents have a financial responsibility towards their children, regardless of either of their respective incomes or capital.

I agree.

If that is true then surely it is unfair that in our case the PWC and her family has an income of 'nil' (according to the CSA) and leads a far more lavish lifestyle than our family . The CSA calculate how much a child needs based on the DSS levels. Shouldn't that amount be divided between both the parents and then the amount to be paid adjusted based on what both parents are able to contribute rather than the NRP and partner being liable for the full amount?

Also (to open another can of worms) should the circumstances of the break up have some bearing on the financial arrangements?

In my husbands case it wasn't his choice to leave the family home (his ex wife had a series of affairs) he forgave her and fought to keep his family together and was devastated when she finally forced him to move out. He ended up losing his home, his children, what he thought was his future, and she tried to bankrupt him into the bargain by not paying bills he thought had been paid lying to the CSA about money that had already been paid to her leaving him with huge arrears to the CSA and financial debts to other companies that he was unaware of until another company made contact to say he owed them money. These debts not considered by the CSA when they assess how much available income they think he had.

In this case why should he bear the lions share of the financial responsibility when it was her choice to kick him out of her life?

Particularly as he suddenly had additional costs such as he had to be able afford to run a reliable car so that he could travel to collect his children every other weekend, the travel costs of that, the extra costs of not being able to rent a one bedroom flat but needing something with at least 2 bedrooms if not 3 to provide a comfortable place for his children to visit, the associated council tax and utility bills for a bigger place, and the costs of furnishing it appropriately including suitable things for his children for when they visited every fortnight. Again things not considered when the CSA assess how much available income he has to pay towards maintenance.

CSA 1 make no allowances for this, and CSA 2 discourages contact as the amount the NRP has to pay reduces depending on how many nights the children stay sadly encouraging the PWC to block contact.

The CSA is such a flawed system, and from our point of view from the experiences we have had certainly biased towards the PWC.

Sadly I do not know how a workable solution that would suit everyone could be found.

cakeforbrains

Marisco wrote: »

If you take the case that CSA worker talks about, it's obvious that the guy is in financial trouble, does anyone really want to push him further? As CSAworker says, let him pay less for a while whilst he "gets on his feet" It doesn't benefit anyone to push people to, and sometimes over, the limit. That is how resentment and conflict happens. It just seems that they "pick" on compliant NRP's wanting more and more all the time, and leave the useless deadbeats (the won't pays) alone.

...

Yes, but where one NRP might use that time to genuinely get back on their feet, another might take out another loan, go on holiday to Florida, and then, when pressed, just say 'well, I can't afford it because of my loan repayments'. And then you have to have the resources to investigate whether people are living reasonably within their means or not.

I agree with you that some self-employed NRPs get away without paying what they should, but that doesn't mean we should let everyone else off too.

Also, I sympathise with your case, I really do, but from what I am hearing CSA1 tended to take a lot more from NRPs than CSA2.

cakeforbrains

13Kent wrote: »

Both parents have a financial responsibility towards their children, regardless of either of their respective incomes or capital.

I agree.

If that is true then surely it is unfair that in our case the PWC and her family has an income of 'nil' (according to the CSA) and leads a far more lavish lifestyle than our family . The CSA calculate how much a child needs based on the DSS levels. Shouldn't that amount be divided between both the parents and then the amount to be paid adjusted based on what both parents are able to contribute rather than the NRP and partner being liable for the full amount?

Also (to open another can of worms) should the circumstances of the break up have some bearing on the financial arrangements?

In my husbands case it wasn't his choice to leave the family home (his ex wife had a series of affairs) he forgave her and fought to keep his family together and was devastated when she finally forced him to move out. He ended up losing his home, his children, what he thought was his future, and she tried to bankrupt him into the bargain by not paying bills he thought had been paid lying to the CSA about money that had already been paid to her leaving him with huge arrears to the CSA and financial debts to other companies that he was unaware of until another company made contact to say he owed them money. These debts not considered by the CSA when they assess how much available income they think he had.

In this case why should he bear the lions share of the financial responsibility when it was her choice to kick him out of her life?

Particularly as he suddenly had additional costs such as he had to be able afford to run a reliable car so that he could travel to collect his children every other weekend, the travel costs of that, the extra costs of not being able to rent a one bedroom flat but needing something with at least 2 bedrooms if not 3 to provide a comfortable place for his children to visit, the associated council tax and utility bills for a bigger place, and the costs of furnishing it appropriately including suitable things for his children for when they visited every fortnight. Again things not considered when the CSA assess how much available income he has to pay towards maintenance.

CSA 1 make no allowances for this, and CSA 2 discourages contact as the amount the NRP has to pay reduces depending on how many nights the children stay sadly encouraging the PWC to block contact.

The CSA is such a flawed system, and from our point of view from the experiences we have had certainly biased towards the PWC.

Sadly I do not know how a workable solution that would suit everyone could be found.

BIB: No, they calculate it as a percentage of the NRP's income, unless you're on the reduced rate, the rules of which I'm unsure about.

And no, I really don't think that the circumstances of the break up should matter. They don't even matter in a divorce court these days. It's far too subjective.

clearingout

the circumstances of a break up have nothing at all to do with the ongoing support and welfare of children. I am appalled it has even been suggested. Few of us would have had children with our exs, I'm sure, had we known how things would turn out but the care of the children should always come first.

13Kent

I take your point, Clearing Out, but surely the care of the children is not just about providing financially for them? What about the love and support they are missing out on by not having the NRP in their household or in their lives any more?

The point I was trying to make was not to apportion blame about the break up, but for some financial consideration because in our case the NRP was financially ruined through circumstances beyond his control. It was the PWC that put him in that position, so surely the fact that his financial situation was not his fault and the CSA were adding to it and also the fact that he didn't put himself in that situation should afford him some financial leniency to help him get his life together again. He should be able to set himself up in a home where he can still have contact with his children rather than being further financially disadvantaged by paying CSA payments that are beyond his means, and losing out even more on precious contact with his children as he had no where to take them. Instead of having a weekend with them he just gets a few hours as he has nowhere for them to stay. I think it's sad that the CSA do not consider any extenuating financial circumstances that end up leaving the Nrp with less and less contact with his children as he doesn't have the financial wherewithal to keep in touch with them and he has to go from having full time children to children he hardly sees because of the financial circumstances he finds himself in as a result of the break up.

The PWC who put him in that position still has her children for most of the time, still has a comfortable home, and still has an income from the partner she no longer wanted to have as part of her life.

jjj1980

13Kent wrote: »

The point I was trying to make was not to apportion blame about the break up, but for some financial consideration because in our case the NRP was financially ruined through circumstances beyond his control. It was the PWC that put him in that position, so surely the fact that his financial situation was not his fault and the CSA were adding to it and also the fact that he didn't put himself in that situation should afford him some financial leniency to help him get his life together again and set himself up in a home where he can still have contact with his children rather than being further financially disadvantaged by paying CSA payments that are beyond his means as the CSA do not consider any extenuating financial circumstances.

If that was to happen, it would also need to be done the other way round as well. The NRP in my case had been taking money from me and showing me receipts for rent etc which turned out to be fake, managed to work out my PIN number and whilst I was on strict bed rest with life-threatening pregnancy complications, managed to empty nearly £2000 from my bank account. He got parking fines on my car whilst I was critically ill in hospital, without having my authority to even drive the car, didn't pay them and only admitted to them when bailiffs clamped my car at 6am one morning. He had been intercepting post, putting mail redirects on that I didn't know about. He caused massive debts and alongside refusing to pay towards any of them and leaving them all for me to pay, he has been doing his utmost to avoid paying CSA payments for the last three years.

I am currently in the position of my case being with the legal enforcement/compliance team as the NRP is again playing silly beggars avoiding their calls, promising to make payments then not doing, asking them to call at specific times/days then not answering or telling hem he's busy and cutting the call off.

13Kent

Absolutely, I totally agree, a lot of NRP do try to avoid their responsibilities and those are the ones that the CSA was originally set up to find. Unfortunately it does end up penalising other NRP's who desperately want to be a part of their children's lives and are no longer in a position to do so.