Closed case help please

shoe*diva79

Kevin, I am genuinely confused as your spouting 'facts' that have not been mentioned at all by the OP. been told not to move for 10 years? Cant see thats been said, no can I see how on earth anyone can be TOLD they cant move. £500 a month? How many children is that for (seeing as you know so many details in this case)

I hope the CSA see the OP for what he is and refuse to let him open the case.

shoe*diva79

kevin137 wrote: »

I know because i know... It doesn't have to be told on a public forum for it to be what it is...

And because the OP hasn't simply said i earn this and this is what they are have taken...

What i am saying is that money is irrelevant...!!! You may think it is... What is being argued here is the fact that the OP is being slated for NOT supporting his child, but for all you know has been supporting extremely well for many many years and that will make no difference to any of you...!!! It is simply that why would you NOt want to support your child...!!! Not really fair without all the facts is it...???

Money is not irrelevent! Here is a real fact for you. Kids cost money. Not £5 a week some get away with paying. Realy, cold, hard money.

kevin137

shegirl wrote: »

Because he's doing it to not pay for his child *bangs head*

But you're also working on the assumption that he can do it

And the PWC was doing it to keep him on a system that unfairly charged for years...???

So let me ask you...

AGAIN

Is it right that the PWC can do this, but the NRP can't...???

If the NRP has the right to keep a case open, and that means the system is unfair to the PWC, then it is simply a turn around when the NRP has asked to be moved to a fairer system the other way...

And there are people on here who have not been able to get on with there lives because living with a partner etc meant they would pay even more... And i don't see you all jumping to there defence...

There are so many hypocrites it is unbelievable...!!!

shegirl

kevin137 wrote: »

And the PWC was doing it to keep him on a system that unfairly charged for years...???

So let me ask you...

AGAIN

Is it right that the PWC can do this, but the NRP can't...???

If the NRP has the right to keep a case open, and that means the system is unfair to the PWC, then it is simply a turn around when the NRP has asked to be moved to a fairer system the other way...

And there are people on here who have not been able to get on with there lives because living with a partner etc meant they would pay even more... And i don't see you all jumping to there defence...

There are so many hypocrites it is unbelievable...!!!

My ex living with his 'partner' didn't lead to paying more until a departure.He now pays naff all.

It's not about the PWC for heavens sake IT'S ABOUT THE CHILD!

galangm8

kevin137 wrote: »

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

Exactly,....we are talking about after 13 weeks Kevin, you know like court orders can be invalid after 12 months and a day you advise, so 13 weeks and 1 day and PWC's on CSA2 and good on her.

Didn't do his homework that good, did he, not to know this?

shoe*diva79

[QUOTE=kevin137;62878075

There are so many hypocrites it is unbelievable...!!![/QUOTE]

Yes, you.

In one post saying he has a legal/moral responsibilty and then advising him how he can evade his financial responsibility to HIS children.

Its okay tho, the british tax payer will pick up the tab eh? And the OP can carry on with his new family in his house that he clearly cant afford if it means his poor kids have to suffer.

kevin137

galangm8 wrote: »

Exactly,....we are talking about after 13 weeks Kevin, you know like court orders can be invalid after 12 months and a day you advise, so 13 weeks and 1 day and PWC's on CSA2 and good on her.

Didn't do his homework that good, did he, not to know this?

Are we...??? The case has just been closed so he is within the 13 weeks, so clearly the original question would be he has teh RIGHT o stay on the CSA1 system, and that has assessed him as NIL in line with the legislation set out for that...!

kevin137

shoe*diva79 wrote: »

Yes, you.

In one post saying he has a legal/moral responsibilty and then advising him how he can evade his financial responsibility to HIS children.

Its okay tho, the british tax payer will pick up the tab eh? And the OP can carry on with his new family in his house that he clearly cant afford if it means his poor kids have to suffer.

I simply stated what the facts are, it is not for me to choose much like it is not for you to choose. Yes morally i believe he should pay, maybe he could contact his ex and pay directly... While still on a NIL assessment, of course that would rely on him actually knowing where his child is in the country, so not a big ask...

And why would the Tax payer be picking up the bill...??? Is it not everyones entitlement to claim regardless of how much CS you receive... So forgive me if i wrong, BUT the taxpayer is already picking up the bill anyway, which takes us back to how screwed up society in the UK really is...

FBaby

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...

This sounds like it has been written in anger. You've mentioned above how we don't know the circumstances of the nrp, yet you write the above about a pwc we know even less about.

I've kind of started the debate here, yet I am an pwc who doesn't get a penny from her kids' dad, who they see every week-end, who even pays for the fare there and back so they can see their father. I have never taken him to the csa and have given up trying to make him see that morally, he should contribute at least something towards them, even if he is in a low paid job.

The rules are the rules...!!!

We all know that, but the discussion is not about the rules but about what is morally acceptable. My -silly- assumptions is that as a parent you value what you should morally do as a parent above what you can get away thanks to the 'rules'. That's what irks pwcs as much as nrps.

I totally understand an nrp view that morally, he shouldn't be paying £100s of pounds of support when it is obvious that the pwc is benefiting more from it than the child itself. I don't believe that 'well the rules are the rules, she is entitled to all the money and she doesn't have to justify how it is spend' holds one bit.

However, on this thread, it is about nrps who use the system to avoid paying anything at all, and morally, I find this despicable.

FBaby

It was a good enough system to rape him of £500 a month for over a decade..

Do you know something we don't? In any case, if this is what he was paying and he feels that it was over what he should have been paying, shouldn't his aim be to reduce the amount to what he considered acceptable (maybe what he would have paid under csa2) rather than looking at a way to pay nothing at all?

edit: I can see this has been answered. £500 can seem a lot, but then, I spend more than that a month on my 2 children, a lot more than that!