Csa changes

shoe*diva79

Crellow4 wrote: »

Both parties can avoid the charges by behaving like grown ups and setting up a direct pay agreement.

Sadly the NRP in my CSA case refuses to act like a grown up despite 14 years of attempts. I (and the CSA) had to drag him through a 6 year court case and altho he now accepts he has to pay, and does, I would doubt he would agree to pay me direct so Ill have no choice to use the agency.

Marisco

13Kent wrote: »

That's shocking! The payment costs the PWC 4% but it costs the NRP an extra 20% - now tell me the system isn't biased towards the NRP!

Yes I agree. Surely to have it fair, then either the PWC should pay 20% or the NRP 4% (or whatever figure, so long as they are both the same)

krashovrload

Marisco wrote: »

Yes I agree. Surely to have it fair, then either the PWC should pay 20% or the NRP 4% (or whatever figure, so long as they are both the same)

++

I don't think the concept of 'fair' has been anything that has ever bothered the CSA...

++

hmc

shoe*diva79 wrote: »

Sadly the NRP in my CSA case refuses to act like a grown up despite 14 years of attempts. I (and the CSA) had to drag him through a 6 year court case and altho he now accepts he has to pay, and does, I would doubt he would agree to pay me direct so Ill have no choice to use the agency.

Yes same here 😞

Crellow4

I think the rationale behind charging the NRP more is that it is more likely to be the NRP refusing to pay! Perhaps this will prove an attractive incentive for more NRP's to pay direct - rather than pay a significant premium on top.

Bluemeanie_2

Crellow4 wrote: »

Both parties can avoid the charges by behaving like grown ups and setting up a direct pay agreement.

Yes that is wonderful in theory, but the PWC in our case likes to play silly !!!!!!s every now and again.
No problem ppaying her direct, it's getting her to believe the assessment.

missusjen

We may end up having to do this as we have both of my partner's daughters and their mother is refusing to pay anything despite being married to a chartered surveyor - apparently they're 'so broke we're having to borrow money for food', yet we're here with 7 children and an income less than 1/3 of theirs....*sigh*

PreludeForTimeFeelers

The running cost to the taxpayer is currently about 35% of each assessment - this charging is the Government's way of clawing back some of that money.

Direct Pay is slightly different to maintenance direct on current cases, with Direct Pay either party can request it, so even if the PWC doesn't want it, the NRP can ask for this as their service type, and therefore avoid the 20% collection fees. Also, if a Direct Pay arrangement breaks down, the CSA can collect missed payments for the timescale while the case was set to direct pay, unlike current cases where they can't collect missed maintenance direct payments.

This takes away some of the flexibility of the assessment, where both parties know what their assessment is so that's the amount that the CSA expect to will be paid.

DUTR

missusjen wrote: »

We may end up having to do this as we have both of my partner's daughters and their mother is refusing to pay anything despite being married to a chartered surveyor - apparently they're 'so broke we're having to borrow money for food', yet we're here with 7 children and an income less than 1/3 of theirs....*sigh*

As you know , the NRPP has nothing to do with the assesment most of the time, even if they were euro lottery jackpot winners.

13Kent

I know for a fact that if we were put on that system then my husband would rather pay via CSA and he would bite the bullet and pay the 20% charge, because it would mean there was no dispute about what he had paid and when because paying the PWC direct could mean that she lies about what she has received and he ends up with arrears for money he has already paid - as has happened in the past when they took her word for it and he ended up with an arrears bill for £14000 for money he had already paid her but she denied was for child maintenance.