Closed case help please

Crellow4

Under CS1 the allowable housing costs are those which are required to be paid. If you chose to make overpayments to reduce the term, the housing costs will be capped at the original rate - so the short answer is 'no'. Under CS1 there are also various allowances for children and disabilities which 'help' to reduce the liability to nil.

PreludeForTimeFeelers

FBaby wrote: »

Under which circumstances could you have a nil assessment under csa1 and something to pay under csa2?

There's actually quite a considerable number of NRPs classed as nil assessed on CS1 who would be liable to pay *something* under CS2 or CMS 2012 - I can't remember the exact figure from the consultation papers but I'm sure it ran over a hundred thousand.

kevin137

@FBaby

It is much like any flawed system, if the NRP had an income of say £1200 and was assessed for 1 child due to disposable income to pay say £500 as he had just split with the PWC and had moved home to his parents and as such could not afford a mortgage, but later found out that he could of had a mortgage and his payment would reduce, would that be wrong then...???

I am not saying either way if this is correct, but it is the system that was put into place for CSA1 and moving to CSA2, so for all we know, the OP could of been paying way over the top under this system for years, had no say in the matter, moved on with his life, met someone else, got a mortgage and thus discovered he could of had this all along...

Does that make him a bad parent, i don't think it does, i think it means the system is wrong....

But you can't pick and choose when the system suits you, now it suits the PWC to change, but it doesn't suit the NRP, and to be fair, we know nothing of the previous situation or how long he had been paying or what the circumstances are, that is for the OP to say or not.

BUT the system as it is, allows him to reopen the case and keep it on CSA1 and that is that...

FBaby

I totally understand what you say. My understanding is that as a whole, csa2 was a better system for nrps than csa1 and that's absolutely fine. I am just puzzled that one system could allow a no payment when another would justify one. Surely a no payment means that the nrp is absolutely incapable of paying anything. How can another system consider that he can.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I can understand a difference between the two system say between £200 and £250 a month (and an nrp wanting to stay or move on the first), but struggle to understand how you could have to pay say £10 a week, not nothing at all on the other. Either you can afford £40 a week or you can't.

shoe*diva79

I think half the reason CSA2 was brought in was to stop many NRP from obtaining high mortgages to lower their CM liability on CSA1. And now likewise with CSA3, it was quickly worked out by NRP that on CSA2, if they salary sacrificed into their pension/other company benefits, their net pay lowered which in turn lowered their CM liability.

Sad but a true reflection that some 'parents' will do anything to evade financial responsibility for their children.

Darna

FBaby wrote: »

Does this mean that if you decide to repay your mortgage in 10 years rather than 20 and pay £2000 a month, then you don't have to pay a penny for your children?

I'm not making extra payments on my mortgage , it's just a standard mortgage. I couldn't afford to pay more on it so it would be repayed quicker. That's cheating the system by increasing your mortgage payments purposely.

FBaby

Surely the only instance that would result in a nil assessment is when your income is nil or under equivalent of JSA?

Crellow4

There are other instances where a nil assessment would be the outcome. High housing costs, children with disabilities, partner with disabilities etc etc

FBaby

Crellow4 wrote: »

There are other instances where a nil assessment would be the outcome. High housing costs, children with disabilities, partner with disabilities etc etc

Does this mean that an nrp could have 5 kids from a first marriage, then decide to buy a very expensive house with a new partner out of choice, and if that partner and her children are disabled, you could potentially not have to pay a penny towards your 5 children because you are expected to support your partner and her children before your own children?

Sorry, playing dumb here, nothing to fight, not my circumstances, but I find this so morally shocking, I can't believe a governmental system could actually allow it!

Crellow4

Pretty much nailed it FBaby.
Why would ANY parent think this is morally correct?..........