Closed case help please

kevin137

To be fair, you never could just increase your mortgage by paying it off quicker, but you could remortgage for improvements and reduce your payment, and yes it was a flawed system, which is why they changed it for a different flawed system...

It is only a matter of time before this happens all over again and people find the little loop holes that they can exploit, BOTH ways... To get more and to reduce...

The simple fact is, that when people split, they become greedy, argumentative, stupid, selfish, and all the other things you can think off...

And there are always 2 sides to a story...

It is always going to be biased, normally towards the PWC as far as the assessment etc, and again with contact etc... This is neither right, nor is it a complaint, MOST men are simply not capable of coping with 50% of the time, but it is far worse than what is right i think...

FBaby

I think there is a difference between wanting to reduce and wanting to pay nothing. I can put myself is the nrp on csa 1, paying say £100 more than if he was on csa 2, looking at ways to reduce his payment in line with what he would be paying on csa 2. I can even understand an nrp on csa2 looking at ways of reducing to what he would be paying on csa 1 if paying a large sum and feeling that the money wasn't spent on the kids.

But to look at ways to reduce maintenance to zero is another step. I suppose there are always those nrp who got someone pregnant by accident, or being trapped and and up having no contact at all with said child, but even then, I struggle to understand that an nrp would feel good about themselves having found a way to pay nothing at all.

kevin137

I didn't say it was right, it is just the world we live in... Made worse by society allowing people to feel good by sponging, not working, and expecting everything handed to them on a plate...

There is so MUCH wrong with society as a whole in the UK right now, i am just glad i am not there...!!!

We have it all coming to us over here in Norway as well, but we are about 20 years behind with the attitude, so for now, we are in a better place, but if the government here don't deal with it soon, we will end up in the same boat...!!!

FBaby

Can only agree with you Kevin, I guess I hadn't realised that added to all the ways one can already avoid working and paying their ways, the csa system allowed someone to pay nothing towards their kids by upgrading their lifestyle. What a dreadful message that gives society, and indeed, it is no wonder kids grow up thinking they are entitled to a lifestyle way above their means.

shegirl

kevin137 wrote: »

Yes YOU can reopen a case, and it will be the same system that is used...

That is your right, but make it formal, so do it by phone, but follow it up with a letter requesting it be opened again and send it recorded delivery...

Technically you will always have the arrears as you can't fully close a case with arrears outstanding... But you could still be closed as far as assessment goes and then when the new case was opened it would flag the arrears as well, so they would still be there also...

The CSA state otherwise.

I also find it disgusting that anyone would advise such a thing to a nrp who clearly wants to escape paying for their children!

shegirl

FBaby wrote: »

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

Sadly not.Ds pathetic excuse for a father had his reduced to nil,down from £420 a month once he and her had their baby.That,with housing costs (recently was looking for an £800 a month house to rent!) and his books only showing a grand a month earnings leaves a nil assessment.Even with a housing costs departure in place,his girlfriend receiving maternity pay AND working her second job (decide she cannot contribute to housing costs at present),tax credits etc.

They have 3 cars though,numerous nights out and weekends away,saving for her divorce and their wedding,always buying themselves things.

But the csa told me how much he'd have to have alone to be assessed above nil and I was shocked at the amount.It's ridiculous

shegirl

FBaby wrote: »

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!

Yep.However,there is a departure available for high housing costs-anything over half their income can be applied against.Doesn't mean it will be successful though.

I always found the disabled child departure ridiculous.A pwc can't have extra money from a nrp due to a child's disability but a nrp can have maintenance reduced due to 'additional costs' for having a disabled child.Both would be entitled to state help,why does the not get a maintenance reduction and be deemed as needing more money while a pwc can't?

I should've fully closed my case years ago when we were back together I think!!!!!

kevin137

shegirl wrote: »

The CSA state otherwise.

I also find it disgusting that anyone would advise such a thing to a nrp who clearly wants to escape paying for their children!

Where is this stated...???

If ANY case is closed and reopened with the CSA within 13 weeks, then it stays on the system it was closed on.... And seeing as either the NRP or PWC can open a case, then that would mean that the NRP can keep it on a NIL assessment...

And simply stating that the NRP is doing this to avoid payment could be both insulting and wrong...

As suggested before, the OP could well of been paying way over the odds due to circumstances before and having NO housing costs, and teh PWC would be able to take full advantage of this... But when he has a house and gets nothing, then it's not fair... So tell me, if the OP was changed to the percentage system in a timely manner with no parent given a choice, i would agree with you..

But the government in there wisdom chose NOT to do this, and this is the result, it is not changing anything in the system, it is using the system that he was FORCED by the PWC and the CSA to use to pay as has been the way for a long time... So why is it wrong now...???

I am all for NRP's paying, as i am for PWC giving reasonable access... BUt if you don't know all the circumstances, then it is wrong to judge in such a way that the OP is avoiding and is despicable in your mind because of it...

shegirl

kevin137 wrote: »

Where is this stated...???

If ANY case is closed and reopened with the CSA within 13 weeks, then it stays on the system it was closed on.... And seeing as either the NRP or PWC can open a case, then that would mean that the NRP can keep it on a NIL assessment...

And simply stating that the NRP is doing this to avoid payment could be both insulting and wrong...

As suggested before, the OP could well of been paying way over the odds due to circumstances before and having NO housing costs, and teh PWC would be able to take full advantage of this... But when he has a house and gets nothing, then it's not fair... So tell me, if the OP was changed to the percentage system in a timely manner with no parent given a choice, i would agree with you..

But the government in there wisdom chose NOT to do this, and this is the result, it is not changing anything in the system, it is using the system that he was FORCED by the PWC and the CSA to use to pay as has been the way for a long time... So why is it wrong now...???

I am all for NRP's paying, as i am for PWC giving reasonable access... BUt if you don't know all the circumstances, then it is wrong to judge in such a way that the OP is avoiding and is despicable in your mind because of it...

I have specifically asked a case worker this and she stated a nrp could not reopen the case like that.

Any nrp on a nil assessment who tried it would be showing that they wish to keep paying nothing,it's fairly obvious.

It's also sensible to consider finances and current outgoings (especially where kids are concerned) before taking on others and having a child's payments reduced to nothing.

kevin137

So because YOU have specifically asked, then it MUST be right...

And how many mistakes have the CSA made on YOUR case...??? And if they are right all the time, then they can't be mistakes...

And NO they would not show that they are trying to avoid it. In fact, it may be said that the PWC would be showing her ability to manipulate the situation by using a system that was designed in a certain way for financial benefit...

IF the CSA chose to not allow this, then i would suggest that legal action be taken in line with the legislation, as it would be WRONG to allow it one way but not the other...

And to suggest anything is obvious in this case is both rude and ignorant... It would be showing nothing other than the assessment is in place and he wants to use the CSA system that has been used all along...