If you could change one thing.

PreludeForTimeFeelers

CSAworkerx wrote: »

Wow, i didnt know this, We dont hear much about the 2012 scheme, but im glad they have changed this, as the 1993/2003 scheme failed in this aspect, thanks for the info

Yeah, the tolerance level for increases/decreases through the year is 25%, but no tolerance applies to the annual review.

kaz62

Hi Jarhead 66 and the very helpful csaworker. I have just registered as I was scanning your posts here. I have read your post which says the age is now 20 and not 19 for csa to stop?? We are gutted. I have been with my partner 12 years. He pays on the CSA1 (I think you called it) where my wages are taken into consideration. I have worked my way up in Social Services, done a degree in Social Work only to find that means we ended up paying almost double to his ex. It is very difficult as we encourage his children 16 and 18 to do what they want and do their best with college etc but that when they leave we will be nearly £500 better off a month. We assumed we would only pay for one after December as his one child is 19 and at college. The other has just started college. I am in tears as others who were assessed 6 months later than us pay half what we do. Also, ex has left second husband who she has child with but will only accept cash payments for maintenance from him as otherwise apparently they would all go to the 'new rules' for assessment.
Sorry to rant but really thought life would be easier after xmas
Thanks if you take time to read all this.

shoe*diva79

medsec_222 wrote: »

Thirdly, annual income could be taken into consideration. My son's ex. has a very well paid full time professional career. Her partner also works full time, so at least can share the cost of the bills, she gets child benefit, working tax family credit and child tax credits. My son on the other hand, has a much lower paid job, still takes care of his children and has to do it on three quarters of his weekly wage. Overtime would help him out now and then, but it is too stressful to contemplate more arrears.

I feel very sorry for your son and the arrears situation he has been put into, however, this particular paragraph of your post is quite amusing.

Can you confirm your know your sons ex wife's salary? And that you have seen her benefit notification letters confirming her entitlement to tax credits etc? Only, if she is in such a well paid, professional (in your own words) job, plus has a partner working full time (not that its his job to cover the cost of raising your grandchildren, but if living with your sons ex then he probably does without quibble) then i doubt very much she is in receipt of these state benefits to top up their household income.

Your son might have a much lower paid job, but its a % CM is paid on (if no arrears due) and if the boot was on the other foot and the children lived with your son, then she would be contributing a larger sum of money given she earns more, despite the % being the same.

I really don't think you can claim to know the financial incomings of your ex daughter in law and quite frankly, it doesn't matter because even if she was a millionaire, your son would still have to financially support his children.

jarhead66

Hello Kaz 62, I know how you feel about the age going up to 20, Another problem that you will find is that even when the oldest child turns 20 your payments won't decrease that much for the other child,
It sounds to me like your partner Ex knows how to play the system and will keep her kids in education as long as possible. you may be lucky and transfer over to CSA3 soon in which case no doubt she will go through the CSA for her other ex partner.
I look forward to the day when i get my letter from the CSA saying that my case has closed.

medsec_222

Glad you find part of my post amusing shoe*diva.

I have not seen my ex. dil salary slip nor would I expect to see it. She works in a profession where salaries are public information, the benefits I refer to are also freely available for public scrutiny. My grandchildren reside with my son for nearly half a week and he also pays child maintenance to his ex. My son would not expect or want any other man to contribute to the support of his children. You are quick to point out my assumption, but you have made an assumption of your own:

(not that its his job to cover the cost of raising your grandchildren, but if living with your sons ex then he probably does without quibble)

You know this do you? Or are you just guessing?

Macca83_2

jarhead66 wrote: »

It sounds to me like your partner Ex knows how to play the system and will keep her kids in education as long as possible.

Surely keeping kids in education and giving them the best possible start in life is not playing the system?

FBaby

Thirdly, annual income could be taken into consideration

I'm assuming when you say this that you include both the salaries of the pwcp and of the nrpp. So if your son finds another successful career earning a nice salary, her income will also be taken into account? As of course, if that should be the case, it should go both ways.

There is already unfairness in the system this way where pwcp's income IS taken into consideration for tax and benefit purposes whereas the nrpp isn't. I personally fail to see how the fact that the pwcp spends a bit more time with the children should make any difference in terms of responsibility towards them.

My view is that the children are the responsibility of both parents who conceived then and no-one else. They BOTH should be fully financially responsible. I don't agree that low income nrpp should pay less if the pwc earns more. Why should the pwc contribute more percentage wise? She will already contribute more total income wise anyway.

I also don't agree at all with the shared care arrangement in place. When it is 50/50, there should be no csa in force at all. If there is a big difference in income, it should be sorted out between the parents.

Finally, what I find to be the biggest downfall is that single mums getting a hefty maintenance for their children should be entitled to the same benefits than those getting nothing.

medsec_222

Perhaps the fairest way when there is Court Ordered shared care, is for child benefit, child tax credits and working tax family credit to be split proportionally between the two carers. This would help both parents, rather than only one. For tax purposes, a lone father with a shared residence of his children is taxed as though he is a single person with no dependents, when quite clearly this is not the case.

Cally_Smart

Macca83 wrote: »

Surely keeping kids in education and giving them the best possible start in life is not playing the system?

It definitely is but when the pwc gets both qc to sign on to a college courses go for a short time (matter of just weeks in one case for one qc) doesn't encourage them to attend or do any coursework then sits back knowing the Ch/ben can be claimed till the end of the academic year it's obviously playing the system. Therefore CM has to be paid as its the requirement of CSA that if Ch/ben is paid the nrp has to keep paying !!
I agree going college WOULD be a good idea -if they actually went !

CSAworkerx

jarhead66 wrote: »

Hello just another question, how long have the CSA being asking the P.W.C. to provide proof that the N.R.P. is working more overtime, which as you stated is a very hard thing to do, All that I ask for is that about 10 year ago my Ex was asking for a reassessment every 3-4 weeks and i was told by the CSA at the time that she could do it as often as she likes, I do know that when i have had dealing with the CSA they have asked me if my wages have increased which they have not as i am public sector and had a pay freeze for the last three years.

Thanks

Re-assessment's + evidence works on a caseworker basis, meaning i may make a decision my collegues wouldnt, Im going to use the other posters case as an exmaple, So lets say the son followed my advice and was re-assessed with no overtime, IF the pwc rings in within say, 4-6 weeks after the assessment, id tell her we have had fairly new evidence suggesting the nrps income is what he is earning, And therefore as it stands the furthest id go would be to simply phone the nrp and ask him "have your wages incresed" if he said no, id leave it there and not re-asses.

However, if the pwc rang in 3-6 months later, id look through the income history of the nrp, if i saw he was doing substanial overtime for some months then had a month with 0 and was re-assesed, id probly ask for new payslips. It also heavily depends on what the PWC says,

"He didnt have the kids on tuesday as he was working overtime"

Id ask for wageslips

"I want a re-assessment as he got one a few months ago"

i probly wouldnt ask for slips.

It really depends on a number of factors, What the pwc says, How long since last re-assessment, Case history, Income history.

We have a duty to re-assess, But if pwcs were to phone in on a weekly basis and we had to check payslips, wed never get anything done in terms of casework, so we do outline to pwcs who are asking for re-assessments for evidence if possible, If they can provide it, we obviosly look into it.