Closed case help please

shoe*diva79

kevin137 wrote: »

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...

..

This paragraph has just made your arguement lose any credibility Kevin. PWC manipulating the system for financial benefit? Really? Surely the PWC is trying, and may possibly fail, to fight for her childrens right to child maintenance from their father, who by the way OP, sounds like a complete deadbeat trying to worm their way out of their responsibilities to their kids.

It never ceases to amaze me how far some people will go to deny their very own flesh and blood. Very sad times.

shegirl

kevin137 wrote: »

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...

Wow.There are far too many people in this world lacking morals and responsibility.

Personally,when I brought my son into the world it was with the full knowledge that he and his needs,financial included,come before everything else.That include feeling like a certain price house to the detriment of a child!!!!!

kevin137

It is a fact that if a PWC has a NIL assessment and decides to close a case to reopen that it is manipulation, how could you deny otherwise...???

It is a very clear case of manipulation and nothing you say will change the situation.

As for buying a house to avoid payment... As a discussion, if a parent, the NRP had been paying nearly half his wages, for 10 years, and then decided to buy a house and the PWC is advised or decides to buy a home at long last to benefit himself, is that avoidance, is that manipulating a system to a nil assessment, is he wrong...???

I am just a little bit confused about how a parent can PAY for a long period of time, and then be deemed an unfit and horrible father... And who is to say that the PWC hasn't denied access the whole period as well...

Very quick to jump to conclusions on here about avoidance...

And as you might have noticed, i already stated that morally, and legally are 2 different things, i just don't think that we meaning ANY of us, have the right to judge without ALL the details, which is what is happening here...

shegirl

kevin137 wrote: »

It is a fact that if a PWC has a NIL assessment and decides to close a case to reopen that it is manipulation, how could you deny otherwise...???

It is a very clear case of manipulation and nothing you say will change the situation.

As for buying a house to avoid payment... As a discussion, if a parent, the NRP had been paying nearly half his wages, for 10 years, and then decided to buy a house and the PWC is advised or decides to buy a home at long last to benefit himself, is that avoidance, is that manipulating a system to a nil assessment, is he wrong...???

I am just a little bit confused about how a parent can PAY for a long period of time, and then be deemed an unfit and horrible father... And who is to say that the PWC hasn't denied access the whole period as well...

Very quick to jump to conclusions on here about avoidance...

And as you might have noticed, i already stated that morally, and legally are 2 different things, i just don't think that we meaning ANY of us, have the right to judge without ALL the details, which is what is happening here...

You do realise many pay because they don't have much choice is the matter,right?Many are horrible fathers before they stop paying,but never mind!

Access is a seperate issue to maintenance and even those out there who do subject the kids and nrps to games and depriving them of each other,do not have kids who deserve to lose out again (or even once tbf)

Manipulation?No,it's doing the right thing for your child and making an adult stand up to their responsibilities.

As far as I am concerned any decent parent would provide whether a system said 'oh,our calculation says we can't make you' or not!.

galangm8

Darna wrote: »

Hi, I am the nrp on the old rules, I have been reassessed recently to zero. Now I have received a letter from the csa stating the PWC wishes to close the case.

I believe she is going to wait the 13 weeks and reopen under the new rules.

Is there anyway I can ask for the case to be reopened so we stay on the old system?

Yes tell them you want to keep the case open and pay at least £50pw for 'your' child, that is the ONLY way you can.

or/ Man up and sell your house and reduce the mortgage costs.

What Kevin is advising is total rubbish regarding NRP can keep the case open.

It's the PWC (you know the one who cares the for child/ren 24/7, the one where the child/ren reside at) ONLY who can apply for child maintenance for the children and it is the PWC ONLY who can stop the claim.

PWC is not manipulating the system as Kevin states, just unfortunately it's a hoop we have to jump through because of deadbeats like you.

Are you the NRP or NRPP? What do you think about NRP not paying for his child?

FBaby

It is a fact that if a PWC has a NIL assessment and decides to close a case to reopen that it is manipulation, how could you deny otherwise...???

Is this a debate about the meaning of 'manipulation'?

Surely it is only right for a pwc to try to get at least 'something' financially from the nrp? Surely any nrp would want to contribute at least 'something'.

As I've said before, there is a difference between using the system to pay less and using the system to pay nothing at all.

kevin137

Really...??? So what i say is total rubbish, so an NRP cannot open a case...???

You lot really do not know what the rules are do you...

EITHER parent can open a case... Only a PWC can close it... So if a case is closed by a PWC then as per the rules of teh CSA and there legislation if reopened, it activates the old case, and thus stays on the system that it was previously...

And as an NRP can open a case, then this would in fact be what would happen...

Or is it that the system now doesn't allow NRP's to open a case either...

There are so many jokers on here...!!!

I do love the comment about MAN UP and sell the house... and reduce the mortgage... So an NRP is also intended to make himself homeless as well now to satisfy the needs of a PWC...???

I really do think that there are many many angry delusional PWC's on this board that have NO idea about how it works in the real world... AN NRP has as many rights as a PWC, and this is the system that you all love so much, because it means the NRP will pay... No problems, no dealing with the NRP, just remove the children, remove the access and keep taking the money... Well that may work for a period, but in this case, it now doesn't... And it is the RIGHT of the OP to reopen the case wether you all like it or not... And if that means NIL assessed, then that is really the end of the story, no matter how many times you scream about it is wrong... Well if it is wrong, then the government has screwed over the PWC not the OP, in fact it has just turned the tables... How many times have we seen PWC receiving stupid amounts of maintenance, leaving the NRP with less money than benefit, and when they turn the tables it is all wrong...

Morally i think you all need to look at just how many people killed themselves because of this system... most of the NRP's... And now, the system is working the other way, oh you are all so hard done by aren't you...

Read back through the thread... Did i say he shouldn't pay, i don't think i did, i think i said he had a moral obligation, just like the mother has a moral obligation to allow access... But i know that this case hasn't had that, access denied for over a decade, while still taking in excess of £500 a month on CSA1... And you think the OP is playing the system...???

Really...???

I hope the PWC in this case reads the board, and actually sees that her time may have come to an end getting a free ride of ridiculous amounts of child support and the LAW is now protecting the NRP...

shegirl

Reopening a case to pay nothing...exactly why would the CSA allow that? It's wrong and would be a complete waste of their time.

kevin137

But it is the RIGHT of the NRP to reopen a case...

And to be fair, why wouldn't he...???

I ALWAYS paid for my children... I could not get moved from CSA1 to CSA2 under any circumstances...!!! They messed around, denied me the right to move and kept taking more money than they should of, and way more than i would of paid under CSA2... Fair...???

NO, so i know exactly where this comes from...!!!

The rules are the rules...!!! It is NOT avoidance if the wages have not changed and the OP has simply bought a house then what has he done wrong...??? Played by the same rules you all play by...

How many times have you all said it is a game, or a hobby... Well it isn't a hobby for an NRP paying over £500 a month, it is the right to a standard of living, and when the NRP finds he can improve his standard of living by simply NOT working, or buying his won home, then god forbid a woman has to play by the same rules...!!!

Most people on here know me, know my position, know i am all for NRP's paying... BUt when you slate the OP for simply asking a question as the legal implications, and the answer is NOT what YOU like... Well you show your true colours... That it is all about the money, that a parent SHOULD without fail no matter what put the child 1st... And if that means you live on the street, so be it...!!!

kevin137

galangm8 wrote: »

What Kevin is advising is total rubbish regarding NRP can keep the case open.

It's the PWC (you know the one who cares the for child/ren 24/7, the one where the child/ren reside at) ONLY who can apply for child maintenance for the children and it is the PWC ONLY who can stop the claim.

Just so we are clear on this, ANY case reopened in 13 weeks of closure stays on the system it was closed on...

And this from the CSA

You can apply if you’re:

the parent the child lives with
the parent the child doesn’t live with
a grandparent or other guardian of the child
a child living in Scotland

So it would appear that the NRP can apply, and if he applies on a case that has just been closed, then the legislation about it reverting to the old case would be what...

CSA1 and a NIL assessment...